Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#IQ org categories

width = "100%"
width="50%" align="left" \| < September 2007 ! width="50%" align="right" \| November 2007 >

width = "100%"

width="50%" align="left" | < September 2007

! width="50%" align="right" | November 2007 >

= October 31 =

==[[:Category:Wikipedians who like Strawberry Shortcake]]==

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Category can only facilitate collaboration on a single article. The single user in the category should use the article's talk page for this - If we allowed a category for each individual article to be created, that would be over 2 million categories allowable. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Actually, the capitalization here is correct; it does not refer to the dessert, but rather the licensed character used in greeting cards and toys. Strawberry Shortcake largely replaced Holly Hobbie in the 1980's. In any case, it's a one-person category, so I can support deletion. Horologium t-c 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::*Yep, caught that before your edit, and changed reasoning appropriately :P. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Keep/Revise - But, if there are other people who use this category for their pages, then deletion may not be necessary... Blake Gripling 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Horologium; user categories are not needed for topics with such limited scope (i.e. 1-2 articles) because collaboration could take place just as well on the article's talk page. There's no need to find anyone ... just post a notice on the talk page and any interested editors will see it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Strawberry shortcake is the title of several series, not just a character in those series. (Compare to :Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond.) And I believe that there are more than just 1 or 2 related articles? - jc37 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:*There are fewer than a dozen (a "whatlinkshere" search of mainspace entries, eliminating all of the Care Bears stuff, reveals a handful of TV specials/movies, a video game or two, and a few other related entries). For some reason, {{tl|Care Bears}} has a link to Strawberry Shortcake, and about 85% of the inbound links to the SS article are from articles with that template. Horologium t-c 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::*I did a "related changes" on the article, and there seem to be a lot more than that. (Character pages, for example.) In any case, there are more than 1 or 2 : ) - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, single user category cannot be collaborative by nature. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete with whipped cream... With creator as only member doesn't seem to be bent to collaboration.SkierRMH 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Categorizing by everything on earth people like leads to ridiculous proliferation of categories. Doczilla 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:That's an argument to delete all the "by interest" categories : ) - jc37 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
::Somehow, I don't see that as something you plan to pursue in the immediate future. (big grin) Horologium t-c 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh... you never can tell (wink and a bigger grin) : ) - jc37 21:41, 9 November 2007 (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.

==[[:Category:Wikipedians who can divide by zero]]==

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an empty category, per creator and sole contributor's request. (G7) - auburnpilot talk 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does not facilitate collaboration, joke category. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom; nonsense cat. Horologium t-c 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as creator.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Dinote ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Dinote}}

:Delete single user has created category for user's subpages; inappropriate use of categories. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD G6 (uncontroversial housekeeping) and inform the user of the Special:Whatlinkshere function. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Tons of precedent to delete categories like this. VegaDark (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. - jc37 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete user's personal category which serves no purpose when all of that user's contributions are already linked together. Doczilla 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per all of the above, and nom. Dreamy ^§ 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy - G6, but whomever deletes should tell the user about the Whatlinkshere function, simply deleting without informing of the correct way would be a bit WP:BITEy. Neranei (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Legião Urbana fans‎ ==

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, C1. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Legião Urbana fans‎}}

:Delete unlikely to foster cooperation toward building the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This category is empty. Horologium t-c 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete empty category. Doczilla 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

= October 30 =

== Category:Users who read DTWOF ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Users who read DTWOF}}

:Rename to :Category:Wikipedians who read Dykes to Watch Out For, convention of :Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the fact that strip is freely available online (if it was not easily accessible, I could see the collaborative value); also, the mere fact of having read a comic strip does not imply any above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic content (excluding lengthy plot descriptions of the type discouraged by WP:PLOT) or a desire to contribute encyclopedic content about it. If no consensus to delete, rename per nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Dykes to Watch Out For. I would also like to see the rest of :Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips similarly renamed en masse, rather than piecemeal. How does one add categories to a discussion? — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:In general, the scope of an in-progress nomination may be expanded only when there isn't any real disagreement between participants (and if the nominator doesn't object, I suppose). This isn't codified anywhere, but it's how most cases seem to be handled. If you feel that the others should be renamed, I think you should start a new nomination, since at least I oppose renaming to "interested in...". My reasons are threefold:

::*First, I do not agree that reading necessarily implies interest (e.g. I read Guardian Unlimited, but have no real interest in the website itself).

::*Second, the information conveyed by this category (knowledge of plot, access to the comic strip) is substantially different from that conveyed by an interest category (interest, irrespective of knowledge or access). For instance, if access to this strip was limited, I would likely support retention of the category.

::*Third, "interested in Dykes to Watch Out For" could be interpreted in more than one way ... :P – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Unlike categories about what people "like", they either read it or they do, and therefore the inclusion criterion is straightforward. This particular strip is important and notable for a lot of other reasons. (I should know. I'm going to be covering it in a class next semester.) Connecting its readers to each other can facilitate collaboration in editing it and articles about their many shared interests. Doczilla 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:RickK Fans ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} speedy deleted by Pedro per CSD G7 (author's request). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|RickK Fans}}

:Delete one entry, a userbox that will soon be at MFD, doesn't foster cooperation and just isn't needed. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, who isn't a fan of RickK? --Kbdank71 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 29 =

== Category:Wikipedians in the Civil Air Patrol ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Civil Air Patrol - I'm not certain what should be done with this. Though it is not unlike the military cats, it is decidedly not military. Suggestions welcome. - jc37 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete ~~Neutral~~ - jc37 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Leave it alone by default? — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:"The U.S. Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF)." (Civil Air Patrol) - This would seem to be more than just merely membership in an organisation. I'm looking to find out if this is a "profession", a skill-related cat, a hobby, part of the military, or what. - jc37 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::It's a civilian auxiliary organization, like the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the police auxiliary here in Milwaukee: civilians trained to help out the parent organizations, not paid but covered by liability insurance when on site (the work can be dangerous), generally uniformed in a distinct way to indicate their quasi-official status. It's not a profession, but it's a heavier commitment than a hobby. --Orange Mike 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok, so if we were to create a more specific parent category for this (and potentially others shown at auxiliaries), what do you think would be a good defining word? Military reserve force? (Reserve force redirects there.) - jc37 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I think that if a new parent cat is created, it should also be able to accomodate a "Wikipedians in a Community Emergency Response Team subcat (which I don't think exists, but could). This would preclude a millitary reserve, but I'm not sure what else it could be. "Civilian assistance groups?" —Scouter Sig 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The category merely expresses an off-wiki organisational affiliation that provides no information about profession, interest, knowledge or skills. It is, in essence, a "reservist of Branch X of the military of Country Y"-type user category (this isn't a category for reservists, but there are similarities between the general purpose of a "civilian auxiliary" and that of a reserve force); I see no reason to encourage the proliferation of several hundred of such categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
: I have to admit, that's a very good point. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:: I see no reason to discourage them. Having now negated each others arguments, I suggest we try to find a principle: I suggest: user categories with more than 1 active member shall be permitted unless they are divisive or inflammatory." the all we need to do here is keep the naming consistent, and weed out the very few remaining problematic ones. In fact, that's the existing policy per WP:userboxes--the only thing required beyond the criteria for a userbox is that they be useful to other WPedians. (hence then need for more than a single member) Any other criterion is not supported by policy. If practice here has been otherwise, either it or the policy needs to be changed. DGG (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::: DGG, there are several problems with that approach/principle. First, Wikipedia:Userboxes is a guideline and does not override policy. Nonetheless, it states: Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default. Consider how useful the category would be to other editors before adding it to your userbox. One or two editors claiming that a category is useful without actually explaining why is insufficient.
::: Moreover, at least two policies apply to user category discussions: WP:NOT and WP:OWN; namely, (1) Wikipedia is not a MySpace equivalent and (2) user categories are not owned by their creators or members (they have no more or less claim to them than any other good-faith editor).
::: If we also consider the principle that policy should generally reflect practice (which is a fairly good measure of extant consensus), then the unambiguous precedent of several hundred discussions over the past several months cannot be ignored.
::: To get back to the topic, I can provide two reasons to discourage a proliferation of random categories: category clutter and WP:NOT (per above). I know that "category clutter" by itself is a weak reason to delete, but it's a valid one nonetheless: a free-for-all in the user category system would not only increase the costs (in terms of time and effort) of maintaining the system, but would also reduce navigability and thereby decrease the likelihood that such categories could be used for collaborative purposes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::(ec) - A discussion of Wikipedian category policy should probably head to some talk page. But that said, these are categories, not templates, not userpages. With all the benefits and liabilities listed at WP:CLS. (And that means that userbox policy is not what we're talking about, even though the user category policy is listed in a section on that page.) If you would like the lowest minimum number for category grouping, it's 4. Though there's currently discussion to make that number even higher, I believe. How Wikipedian categories differ from Article categories is that inclusion doesn't fall under the content policies (such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR) but rather WP:AGF that everyone is being honest. It's clear from over 2 years of discussion that not every userbox should have a related Wikipedian category. And that the categories should be related in some way to collaboration. Simple identification should be placed as a userpage notice of some kind, but no need for a category. This is related to consensus at WP:CFD, that article categories should not be created just to have a "notice" at the bottom of an article. Such information should be placed on the article page itself, rather than creating a category for it. There are more, such as don't create "not-based" categories, but that's enough to give you an idea. Again, I would like to reiterate that these are categories, not pages. And as such, they are groupings, not to be used merely as notices. As I look through the various keep votes on this page, I note that many consider categories as a sort of "sign-up sheet" - "Everyone who identifies as "x", add yourself to this list". And why? Because everyone else did, and I want to feel as a part of the group, or to show off how many lists I'm on, or whatever other reasons of notification or feeling included, or even pride. (This doesn't even go into the issues of vote stacking, social clubbing, bias, and other potentially negative uses for the categories.) Vanity articles aren't allowed, why should we have vanity categories? We shouldn't. There is no reason that can't be duplicated on a user page. And to be clear, I quite obviously don't consider all Wikipedian categories to be "vanity". Just those which are badges of notification, rather than groupings intended for collaboration. And the real issue here is that there have been literally hundreds of such deletions for these reasons. It's only when someone nominates a category that large enough sub-section of the community have ascribed a certain pride or self-identification to that suddenly these categories are HARMLESS, and leave my category alone, go delete yours... In other words, a double standard. - jc37 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Black Falcon. No collaborative potential comes from this. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians in the Boys & Girls Clubs of America ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Boys & Girls Clubs of America - a single Wikipedian in a single association. - jc37 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - if any article has needed collaboration it's that article. It's quite amazing considering how notable the organization actually is. I've left a notice on the sole member of that category's talk page so he can weigh in (in case the category is not in his watchlist). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Any collaborative potential seems to be limited to a single article and, thus, could just as easily be carried out on the article's talk page. If no consensus to delete, then rename to :Category:Wikipedians in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, to match the title of the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
'Delete, per all of the above. Dreamy ^§ 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. The category is too old to still exist with only one member. Doczilla 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians in Challenge Coin Association ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Challenge Coin Association - a single Wikipedian in a single association concerning a single article. - jc37 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. If no consensus to delete, merge to :Category:Wikipedians who collect coins per User:Black Falcon, below. - jc37 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC) added merge option - 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom (changed from 'merge' following Horologium's comment below) ~~Merge into :Category:Wikipedians who collect coins~~; the CCA article states that its an organisation of coin collectors. Since the number of articles related to the CCA is quite small, merging into a more general category (that is, for some reason, quite sparsely-populated) seems useful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge Joe I 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge Challenge Coins are not currency, which is what "coin collectors" are (note the link to Portal:Numismatics on the :Category:Wikipedians who collect coins page.) These coins (which are usually over an inch across and about twice as thick as a quarter) are popular with military commands and are often awarded for accomplishment of a special task, and are sometimes exchanged among members of different commands involved in joint exercises. The category should not be merged into the coin collecting cat, although I am not opposed to outright deletion. Horologium t-c 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this seems to be dead, a user cat with nothing in it is not needed at all... Marlith ^T/C 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete A hobby category. Wikipedia is not a social network. Lurker (said · done) 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete stagnant hobby category. Doczilla 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete as un/underused hobby category that serves no purpose at this time. SkierRMH 05:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedians by organisation (topical) ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. Precedent at DRV seems to indicate that these should be split into distinct nominations. At a minimum SCA and BPS should each stand alone. It may be acceptable to keep the other 4 together. No prejudice against immediate renomination. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery

::Category:Wikipedians in the Australian Computer Society

::Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

::Category:Wikipedians in the Institution of Engineering and Technology

::Category:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society

::Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism

:Each of these (except the last) has only one or two members. And while at first glance membership might suggest possibilities for collaboration, these are simply merely duplicative of a related "interested in" category. Also per precedent of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Fraternal organisations, and other similar nominations on that page. - jc37 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep (most of them at least). I just added myself to the IEEE, and I think these categories can be useful for collaboration. I can't speak for all of the organizations, but IEEE and ACM both have numerous suborganizations, each of which specialize in topics that can be very helpful in Wikipedia. (There's a depth and breadth here. All members of the organizations can be expected to know certain things at a higher level, whereas each member can be expected to know some things very well.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Which I noted in the nom. However, having disparate categories describing the same thing would seem to be actually interfering with collaboration than helping. I'm not suggesting a merge, though, for the typical reason of not wishing to miscategorise Wikipedians (who may have only joined a cat for identification purposes). - jc37 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::I looked for :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, but could not find it. I'm somewhat new in looking for categories. Can you provide some help? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Either you're being facetious, or we're misunderstanding each other : ) - I'm talking about :Category:Wikipedians interested in psychology, :Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics, or :Category:Wikiepdians interested in electrical engineering (if it existed). - jc37 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Ah, I wasn't being facetious. I forget sometimes that not everyone on the internet knows what the IEEE and ACM are. I'm a member of the IEEE, but I wouldn't really classify myself as interested in electrical engineering. That organization might not be exactly what you'd expect. This also goes for the ACM (which I've considered joining). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, and while I'm at it, based on members I know, the SCA would probably be a great resource for articles dealing with medieval history. Finally, I feel compelled to disclose that I've fixed many of the userboxes relating to the categories above. At least 3 of them that had only 2 members now have many more. (I don't want people to think you were lying in your original nom statement.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Note that just because a userbox exists, doesn't mean that there needs to be a category attached to it. (Per Wikipedia:Userboxes.) - jc37 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh, I realize that (and indeed just created the template {{tl|User high school}} that has no category attached to it). However, per the user boxes, the intention was to include the user in that particular category. I merely fixed the user boxes accordingly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep BPS, IEEE and IET as they are professional organisations, whose members have to satisfy entry requirements. Therefore, the categories foster collaboration by identifying people who have some expertise in the relevant disciplines. Strong Delete for the Society for Creative Anachronism- this amounts to categorising Wikipedians by hobby. Delete the rest, they appear to identfy people with expertise in certain disciplines, but there do not seem to be strong entry requirements for those organisations, making the categories less useful for collaboration. Lurker (said · done) 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think the ACM is much different from the IEEE in its entry requirements. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:McDonald's and Wal-Mart "are professional organisations, whose members have to satisfy entry requirements." And I don't think it can be argued that they are not international. And if you're of the opinion that the entry requirements aren't comparable, let's start talking Olive Garden, Radio Shack, or even Geek Squad. (And how about unions, such as members of the AFL-CIO? Teachers, butchers, and electricians - among many many others - may beg to differ with you about skill levels.) Such categories have already been deleted in the past. These will create category trees which duplicate existing (or potentially existing) category trees. And divergence wouldn't seem like a "good thing". They are unnecessary intersection of skill/profession/knowledge with an organisation. Let's just categorise by the skill/profession/knowledge, and reduce duplication. Incidentally, this rationale is the same for Wikipedians by alma mater. It doesn't matter where you worked, where you went to school, what group you belong to. They are merely labels of self-identification. It's the knowledge/experience that you gained from it that's important for collaboration. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep (except SCA, which is different from the others and should be considered separately--I think it's defensible, but on different grounds) Now that people know about them, perhaps they will join. These are profession and not just fraternal, and can therefore be a great help in writing articles. I don't see one for my organisations, but it seems a good idea, and perhaps I will start them. I don't see what entry requirements have much to do with it--this is not an organisation where academic rank counts. DGG (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete :Category:Wikipedians in the Australian Computer Society (created a year ago, but still a single-user category), weak merge :Category:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society into :Category:Wikipedian psychologists (two-user category and the creator does not object to deletion), and delete :Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism (per Lurker). I have no opinion on the rest. Given that there seem to be unique circumstances particular to each category, and all of the comments are mixed to a certain extent, I think any closure should be done without prejudice to individual relisting of any categories that are kept. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians in Scouting ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians in Scouting to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting (or perhaps :Category:Wikipedian scouts if the term "scout" is clear enough) and recat - possibly to :Category:Wikipedians interested in outdoor pursuits.

:While I think that the subcategories could use some clarification and cleanup, I think that this is a good first step. Unlike most identification categories, I think it's probably fair to say that those who were or are scouts, and cared enough to claim such on their userpages, would probably be interested in collaborating about scouting. ~~Also, AFAIK, "scouting" should probably be lower case.~~ - jc37 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose new name Scout/Scout/Scouting are proper nouns in English and hence the proposed new cat name should have it spelled "Scouting". Other than this I do not object to a rename. "Wikipedians interested in Scouting" is better I think. If this is agreed, to, speedy this cfr and I'll do the name change myself--and I'm the ScoutingWP coordinator. Just let me know at the proper time. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
To back up the distinction that Rlevse is making, I'd argue that Scouting refers to a very specific activity, whereas scouting does not. A good argument for the rename (with the proper capitalization) is the presence of the subcat :Category:Wikipedians who collect Scouting memorabilia. One doesn't have to be a Scout to collect the memorabilia. For example, I have some memorabilia, and I'm no longer a Scout. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Changed to upper case "S". Thank you for the clarification. - jc37 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting per the discussion above, especially Ben Hocking's comment. If my interpretation of the article Scouting is correcting, then references to the movement and things affiliated with it should be capitalised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename is OK, Scouting is capitalized as noted in this context. Oppose recat to outdoor pursuits; the outdoors is a Scouting method, not a purpose or goal. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Could you clarify what you mean about the outdoors? - jc37 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::The proposal includes a recat to :Category:Wikipedians interested in outdoor pursuits. While there is an intersection here, Scouting is not a camping club; the outoors is simply one of many parts of the Scout method. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
PS Opposed to moving to the outdoor pursuit cat per Gadget850. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I think the main goal is to move the category into the Wikipedians by interest category tree; whether it is located in the main category or one of the subcategories can, I think, be determined later. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting. If you are a Scout, you're probably interested in Scouting. And you can be interested even if you aren't a Scout. —Scouter Sig 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - this is identity and social networking. I would be otherwise inclined to keep, except for the trend to the present of removing all user categories that are based on life experience, personal interests, and affiliation.Michael J Swassing 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians in Scouting doesn't say much about life experience, so I don't see how the first item in your list applies. Considering that the purpose of this nomination is to create an "interested in..." category, the second item most definitely doesn't apply. More generally, there is no trend to delete user categories based on interest (any nomination of :Category:Wikipedians by interest would surely fail). Third, all user categories express an affiliation, so the third item is inapplicable too, since no one is pursuing the deletion of all user categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Looking at Michael J Swassing's comments in the wikipedians by Alma Mater discussion below strongly suggests that his comment above is nothing but trolling, and breaks WP:POINT. Lurker (said · done) 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting, useful broadening of cat. Chris 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting, broader is better :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting for all the reasons above. I am very active on Scouting artciles but have not been a member for 36 years. The broader category is best. --Bduke 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting, as that will include the present members, attract a wider audience, etc. I do not necessarily agree with recategorizing into :Category:Wikipedians interested in outdoor pursuits, but I think that might be a fine additional parent category. I know that not all scouting activities involve the outdoors, but historically scouting has predominantly involved outdoor activities. To the scouts in the conversation: Is that still true? — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::Scouting is still primarily an outdoore pursuit, except for Cub Scouts. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting, useful broadening of cat. But Scouting can not reduced to it´s outdoor activities. Scouting is an educational youth movement. Very important are i.e. law and promise as a a personal code of living -Phips 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Vigil Brother Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} upmerge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Vigil Brother Wikipedians

:This is an over categorization; I belive that it is also a little bit elite-ist. It is a subcat of :Category:Arrowman Wikipedians, which I feel is completely acceptable and appropriate for ALL Order of the Arrow members. I do not belive that there is any more 'essence of collaboration' from people in this category. —Scouter Sig 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as the nominator —Scouter Sig 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge into :Category:Arrowman Wikipedians per nom, my belief that categorising users by award does not foster collaboration, and this precedent. I think it's also relevant that Vigil Honor does not have its own article, but is just a section in the article Honors and awards of the Order of the Arrow. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge per BF. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge, ~~and next time it would be Scoutlike to discuss your plans at the Scouting Project you are a member of before you post it here, Scoutersig~~. Chris 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the same reasoning for Eagle and Gold award in scouting. During the girl scout Gold award discussion below Equazcion wrote, ". . .if you want to find someone who knows about girls scouts, for article info or what have you, who better to turn to than a gold award winner?" Substitute 'Order of the Arrow' for 'girl scout' and 'Vigil honor' for 'gold award', and you have exactly the same situation. Further in the discussion Equazcion elaborates, "the bearer is a better bet for good information than just any average member." I'm not seeing much of a difference for this situation except maybe in size of the organization. R. Baley 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps I am missing something, but why wouldn't you compare "boy scout" to "girl scout", in this case? - jc37 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::Hi Jc, sorry if my above response was not clear. What I'm trying to say is that the 'vigil' honor in the OA is similar to the Eagle award in boy scouts which is similar to the Gold award in girl scouts. R. Baley 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok, so after reading over Order of the Arrow, and finding this: "The Order of the Arrow (OA) is the national honor society of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA)." - I'm still wondering why we're not comparing boy scouts to girl scouts. But that aside, I'm wondering if perhaps, since OotA is a "national honor society", it should be deleted, per precedent of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:National Honor Society Wikipedians? It would at least make this discussion moot. - jc37 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep because this category gathers expertise about Order of the Arrow, a Boy Scout related organization. This group fosters collaboration and gives WikiProject Scouting a pool of users to draw from for expertise. Arguably, no one knows more about the BSA and Order of the Arrow than the Vigil honor arrowmen. - 199.67.138.83 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge and delete as per nom. This is way over-categorization. --Bduke 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Overcategorisation. And it has no relevance to writing an encyclopaedia. Lurker (said · done) 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge - I think this is overcategorization, the Order of the Arrow's category should provide enough for collaboration, IMHO. Neranei (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats ==

The result of the debate was Delete all, without prejudice against creation of "Wikipedians Interested in XYZ University" categories. Please allow me to explain, as I'm sure this deletion rationale will surprise many. The issue has been raised, time and again, that user categories are "Not useful for collaboration" and only serve as identification mechanisms, which is not what Wikipedia is about (see WP:NOT#SOCIALNET). Yet, the proponents of user categories, including this debate, claim otherwise. When asked to show examples of active or previous collaboration using these categories, none has been provided. The words "could" "can" and "possibly" are used, with no actual references to these categories ever being actively used for collaboration. In addition, renaming these has issues, as not all students/alumni of a university are necessarily interested in said university. In addition, the discussion here played a factor into my closing rationale. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Alma mater list for the complete list. - Warning, this is a HUGE list of categories. 672 as of a few days ago. These are quite clearly just for indentification purposes. And though I don't often say it in relation to Wikipedian categories, Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. In addition, Wikipedia is not a directory. A userpage notice should be fine, there is no need for categories to group alumni together.

:(Note: I've asked User:After Midnight to help in reformatting that subpage for readbility, if possible. He's also going to do the tagging - and adding any that may have appeared since that list was made. He has stated that he intends to stay neutral to the discussion, however.) - jc37 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - this is a prime example of user categories which are relevant. Alumni of a given school are both good sources for information and checking, and people who should be watched for POV problems. These cats make both aspects easier to monitor. --Orange Mike 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
See previous discussion. The main point brought up there, which I believe is still valid, is that these categories can help with collaboration on school-related articles. This is not just theoretical - they have actually been used for this purpose. --- RockMFR 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:So you see these categories as being less about identification and more about being "from" a location (a school, in this case)? - jc37 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all, useful for collaboration on related articles. We do have articles on universities here. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all - useful, harmless, seems like an easy decision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:While we should typically not concern ourselves with performance, I think 672 categories are concerning, and wouldn't call them "harmless". See WP:CLS, for more information. - jc37 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::Well, that's just a processing issue, not a storage issue. So the number of categories isn't important -- just the frequency of use. In terms of cost-benefit analysis, it doesn't matter how frequently the category is used unless the frequency affects the marginal utility of the category, and I don't see how it would in this case (at least not in the direction of more usage). So it's a valid reason for deletion, but I don't think it applies more in this case than any other, and overall I think it's pretty negligible. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - I would otherwise be inclined to keep, except for the recent history of deletion of all user categories based on identity, social networking, and life experience. Perhaps getting the frat boys and sorority sisters peeved will gain a broader interest in the jihad going on here, on this page.Michael J Swassing 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So... delete the page so that the IfD can be overturned, a more representative group of editors might be aroused, precedent can be changed, and the category can hopefully be restored? Certainly one of the more peculiar !votes (and I don't really mean that in a negative way)! :O — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I do not mean for my vote to be a disruptive edit. However, it should be noted that the "consensus" on this page involves a small number of deletionists who have already jumped the shark. If someone wanted to delete all user categories and be done with it, the only reason the regulars on this page would object is it would interfere with their hobby and passtime: similar to picking scabs off one by one.Michael J Swassing 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that last bit is a bit extreme, and I totally missed the jumping the shark reference, but I definitely agree that low, disproportionate representation in UCFD is an issue. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
While I understand that the user is not happy with the deletion of the Plant amnesty categories, I don't think that making WP:POINTy comments helps. A couple things: The "personal experience" categories are not being nominated for deletion (education, or skill, for example), self-identification ones are. While I won't speak for any of the other regular commenters on this page, I am not a deletionist. I've heard it said again, and again that there is low turnout on this page. There are several tools on my userpage. Try one and see how many different people actually comment here. For that matter, count the number of different Wikipedians who have commented just on this page currently. The problem, to paraphrase The Matrix, is choice. If people don't wish to comment, they don't have to. Notice that I personally have not commented in every discussion on this page either. Also, you may wish to refrain from using words such as "jihad", in order to prevent confusion, and possibly creating disruption from the mere use of the word. - jc37 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not un-happy about the deletion of the user category for wikipedian members of Plant Amnesty. I created it, I was the only member of it, I emailed information about it to other members of Plant Amnesty to try to get some help on all of the forestry and arboriculture related articles. None came. After a period of time a bot deleted the category because it had only one member for some period of time. I actually do agree that that is a pretty good procedure for handling categories that seemed like a good idea at the time, but never panned out.Michael J Swassing 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A related category might be :Category:Wikipedians interested in environmentalism. And you may wish to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science. There are several WikiProjects which seem to concern plants Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants in particular. I hope this helps. - jc37 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I regret if my use of simile and metaphor are provocative. It is my intent to express surprise and contempt for what I have found going on here.Michael J Swassing 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is "going on here" that is worthy of contempt? Also, per the notice at the top of this page, I suggest we relocate this off-topic discussion (should you wish to continue it, of course) to the talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I understand now to what you are referring. I think that the near-automatic keep/delete dichotomy that arises in these types of discussions is related more to the structure of the page, designed to efficiently handle a large quantity of nominations (analogous to a mass-production assembly line), rather than an attempt to do away with all user categories. However, I certainly see the appeal of your argument, that "discussion" should not be limited solely (or primarily) to deletion or retention; at present, such discussion is relegated to the talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) I comment in most UCfD discussions and used to be an active nominator here; however, I am not a deletionist and I do not want to delete all user categories. The nominator of this category self-identifies as an inclusionist and has elsewhere stated that he has no desire to see all user categories deleted. I think you have either seriously misinterpreted or are seriously mischaracterising the nature of this discussion page, its participants, and their intents. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename all to "Interested in in x University" - There are many pages having to do with lots of universities, so a category is useful to group people interested on collaborating on articles related to the university. The current naming convention doesn't adequetely convey the category should be used for collaboration purposes, however. VegaDark (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
: I would agree totally, if we could be sure that those in the cats were intending more than identification. (Referring to the "zodiac problem".) How about: "Delete, with no prejudice for creation of corresponding "by interest" categories". And clarify that all the single article/single-user ones shouldn't be recreated unless/until there is more interest/subject matter. - jc37 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::I do not support renaming to "Interested in X University". To use myself as an example, I'm interested in the University of Georgia, but I don't know a thing about it (and you'll note I've never edited that article). I'd fit perfectly in a category titled "Wikipedians interested in University of Georgia" but I wouldn't be any help to collaboration. An alumni on the other hand should be able to point somebody in the right direction, at the very least. - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The example above is exactly the issue. If a person wants a userpage notice to show identification as an alumnus, that should be fine. But there is no need for a Wikipedian category. If someone wishes to create categories intended for collaboration, that would be fine too. But as shown in the scouting cats above, there are those who may not be alumni, but who may be interested in collaborating in these categories. So what then? We have two entirely duplicate category trees? 672 times 2 = a lot of categories that we really shouldn't need. And given the choice, let's delete the identification ones, since they exclude those interested who may not be alumni. - jc37 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename all as User:VegaDark, if they weren't interested, the wouldn't had bothered to put their selves in the category. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:They would if their only reason was to display their alma mater "Look at where I graduated!" among other reasons. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Very helpful in finding people to work with on university related articles. KnightLago 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all Contrary to what some may think, these categories actually do benefit collaboration. On more than one occasion, I have used the alumni categories to find a Wikipedia related to a certain university or college in order to find a specific source or image. These are greatly beneficial to the creation of university related pages, and have nothing to do with Wikipedia being a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. These are for collaboration and would be a great loss if deleted. - [[User:AuburnPilot|

color="#0000cd">auburnpilot]] talk 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep all - No-brainer here. No harm done in allowing those who have graduated from the same university to contact each other for the purposes of collaboration. FCYTravis 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I do think these categories can be useful for collaboration. However I am deeply concerned about the idea that we can delete 672 categories in one relatively brief debate. Most of the people who use these categories are very unlikely to know the debate is going on. These categories have been built up slowly over several years. They should not be removed. --Bduke 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- As a member of WikiProject Universities, I can testify that these are useful, I find them useful and have seen other people use them to collaborate on university-specific wiki projects. Danski14^(talk) 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
: Could you provide some example links from prior to this discussion? - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose renaming per below; I can't decide on keep/delete. Weak delete and oppose renaming. Although it is virtually certain that many (maybe most) people use these categories as nothing more than userpage notices, I think they do have some collaborative value. Unlike high schools, there are usually multiple articles associated with any given post-secondary institution, so the potential for collaboration is not limited to one or two articles only. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:I've seen the collaboration value espoused. Can any of the supporters provide some examples of this happening? I don't doubt that it's possible, but I haven't seen any evidence that it is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::I personally don't know, as I've never tried to use these specific categories ... I'm mostly trying to theorise on the basis of extant information (which is all just a fancy way of stating that I'm speculating). ;) There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of editors using these categories have no interest whatsoever in collaborating on the topic; for them, this is nothing more than userpage notice. The only question (for me) is whether it's better to make do with this set of identification categories or to start over with more collaboration-oriented categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Switched from 'keep' per Lurker's point regarding WP:COI issues and per the fact that all "useful" claims so far are either speculation (like my comment above) or equate self-identification with encyclopedically-relevant interest and knowledge (i.e. that does not violate WP:NOR). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I can't say I agree that being an alumni of a university poses a conflict of interest. Certainly, we would hope the administration (read dean, president, board, etc) would respect the potential for a conflict of interest, but I don't believe merely attending a school should forbid a user from participating in the development of that school's article. Similarly, I would expect the Pope to stay away from the article on the Roman Catholic Church, but I wouldn't expect somebody to forbid catholics. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::... Good point. Given my obvious ambivalence regarding this category tree (I've already changed from 'keep' to 'weak keep' to 'weak delete'), I'll just stick with what I'm sure of: namely, that I oppose renaming the categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have posted this message on the WP pages for WP:FRAT and WP:UNI: "All, if you have an opinion either way, please note that the bulk of user categories for your school of graduation are up for deletion at this page right here. This is a chance to speak your mind about how education can/does/does not affect Wikipedia work." I am not trying to canvass a vote one way or another. Yes, I realize that both groups will most likely want to keep the cats, but I'm not sure who to notify who would 'obviously' be voting against. The Deltionist Cabal keeps hidden pretty well :) —Scouter Sig 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:The problem with that "note" is that this nom has nothing to do with their education. It has to do with identifying as alumni. (A "badge" as opposed to knowledge.) If you want examples of education, look under the other subcats of Wikipedians by education (such as Wikipedians by degree). - jc37 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all and do not rename/redefine. These categories are useful for finding people who can help improve the articles. Timrollpickering 10:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and oppose rename: these categories are considerably more useful than the degree categories. Kestenbaum 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:How so? The degree categories at least suggest knowledge in a topic of study... - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep and I prefer not to be called a frat boy. So long as a category provides relevant information it should not be deleted. Airpear 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
: "As long as a category provides relevant information, it should not be deleted" - I'll presume that you meant Wikipedian categories, considering the venue. - But seriously, consider that as a criterion for inclusion for a moment. What is "relevant information"? Do you think that whether someone lists as female, a parent, a baby boomer, 300 pounds, and drives a car is "relevant"? There are many related articles to each of those, yet they've been deleted in the past. Why? Because there is no reason to presume that people who fall under a certain demographic may be interested in editing articles related to that demographoc. So then we just have useless sprawling categories, that essentially exist for "feel-good" reasons. People could get the same feeling from making that statement on their userpage. They don't need a category for it. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all and do not rename: I also agree that these categories are useful, at least as much as any other category for Wikipedians. A user's university affiliation has come up in the past during AfD debates when one editor may have COI, and is especially useful to WikiProject Universities for both creating new university-specific wikiprojects and gathering contributors for article improvement drives. —Noetic Sage 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all and do not rename/redefine per User:xDanielx. Seriously, this anti Wikipedian catetgorisation drive has to have limits. I am happy to cut out useless and redundant categories where appropriate, but this is a bridge too far. --Legis' (talk - contribs) 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
: Why is this a "bridge too far"? Because you've deemed that this one has value? "Useless and redundant" is totally in the eye of the beholder. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No doubt this makes me someone who !votes delete for fun, and a shark-jumper to boot, but I oppose the use of Wikipedia as a social networking site. Listing Wikipedians by school does not foster collaboration, unless you think that having Wikipedians who attend a school as the main contributors to a school's article is a good idea. which it often isn't. Lurker (said · done) 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I am really curious to hear statistics on how often categories like these actually are used for collaboration. Not "are useful", or "can be used for collaboration", or are "possibly" anything; I want to hear from people who either contacted or were contacted because of a user category, and went ahead with someone else and pooled their knowledge to edit an article. I have a strong suspicion that a very high percentage of people in these categories are in them for no other reason than to tell the world, "Look at me, I went to ABC University, or belong to XYZ, or are interested in whatever, or are a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_8#Category:Delphine_Wikipedians dolphin]". --Kbdank71 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all There is no indication that these are used for abuse or lobbying. People who want to spam university articles will get there perfectly well even without them. There are some social elements to Wikipedia. One's school(s) are one of the things a great many people talk a little about on their user talk pages now and then, but I havent seen anyone overdoing it & if they do we have ways to handle it. Given the ubiquity of college-oriented social web sites I doubt anyone would bother using WP for this purpose. Even I who do not list user categories am interested in knowing about other people here from my own universities; I don't like to use userboxes, but I might as an exception list myself in the 3 or 4 appropriate places here--I never thought about doing till now, but I see the virtues of it--it's suitably low key as compared to boxes. Something to be encouraged. DGG (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:How about just type some text on your userpage. You don't need a userbox or a category to share such information. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep All per Orange Mike and Bduke above. Wl219 06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above plus: fosters collaboration, is about the only way left that a person can verifiably cat about a qualification as the institutions have records. The 13 year old professor syndrome. My personal opinion is the category deleters are expending effort better directed elsewhere in Wikipedia. I believe no barnstars or other awards should be given for category deletion as it is driving the entire effort to debase Wikipedia contributors. If these go, the language categories are next. Maybe work onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jc37/Userboxes these subcats before the academic ones? Mikebar 06:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:Well, that was a classic example of suggesting that "If you get yours, I want mine". Which has absolutely nothing to do with the nomination. And as I've mentioned elsewhere seems to be merely a statement of ownership. Incidentally, concerning: "is about the only way left that a person can verifiably cat about a qualification as the institutions have records." - you can post a notice on your userpage about such information, and don't need a category for it. A category is a grouping. The "bottom-of-the-page" listing is incidental, and if that's what a category is being used for, the category should be deleted. Also, quite a few more categories once were at the bottom of the page you listed, but when deleted, they were removed from the related userboxes, and I was thus no longer categorised. All of the ones left on that page are merely from userboxes. Also, this nomination is not about all Wikipedian categories, merely the ones which are being used as identification, and not collaboration. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep with Rename Suggestion I think renaming them would be helpful, but as above "interested in" is not sufficient. However, maybe "employees, alumni, and current students of"? The current students and employees would probably have even more info about the university than the alumni, other than historical information which might be more the alumni expertise. Felisse 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
: And a store manager (or regional manager, for that matter) of a McDonald's would likely have different information about the corporation than the fry cook. So we should have :Category:Wikipedian fry cooks? - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as useful colaboration opportunities, POV notices, and general solidarity within Wikipedia (I've never seen a Michigan State user vandalize an Ohio State user page).—Scouter Sig 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask again. To those who want to keep because they are "useful colaboration opportunities", have you either contacted someone or were contacted because of a user category, and went ahead with someone else and pooled their knowledge to edit an article? I hear alot about "it's great for collaboration", but not much of "I've collaborated with someone because of this category". --Kbdank71 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:The answer is yes, though I don't understand why it really matters. I include myself in :Category:Wikipedian instrument-rated pilots, and although I've never been contacted because I am in the category, I know if somebody were to contact me with a instrument flight questions, I would have the resources to answer that question. By the same token, students/former students of universities frequently have access to sources/databases/materials that those who have no affiliation do not. Because I'm in the category :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University, if somebody wished to gain access to a source or simply had a question related to the university, I know I could either help them myself, or direct them to somebody who could. Simply because nobody has asked me, doesn't mean they won't. It also doesn't mean the category isn't useful. - auburnpilot talk 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::While I realise that kbdank71 asked this in general about "User categories", This nom is specifically about the alma mater categories. So I'd like to ask a similar question: "To those who want to keep because they are "useful colaboration opportunities", have you either contacted someone or were contacted because of an alma mater user category, and went ahead with someone else and pooled their knowledge to edit an article? I'd also appreciate links from prior to this discussion showing it. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, I was asking it for the alma mater categories specifically, but now that it's mentioned, why would I pick a random person in :Category:Wikipedian instrument-rated pilots, or in :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University, or in any other user category, alma mater related or not, when I have zero idea how much knowledge you have about the subject, or even if you know where to go for references, possibly wasting my time if you don't have the answer I need, when I can instead go to a wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities and ask one question that all people will see and can help with? Can any of these be used for collaboration? Sure, but why would you when there are better, more effecient avenues to take? --Kbdank71 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The debate between user cats and WikiProjects is the same as the debate between categories and lists, categories and navigational templates, and any other "category vs something else" debate. It all depends on how you use Wikipedia. Categories have less detail, but are easier to manage. WikiProjects/navigational templates/lists can have more detail, but are more difficult to manage (and in the case of WikiProjects, have more bureaucracy). Identification categories and WikiProject member cats/lists can and should co-exist. --- RockMFR 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Categories may be easier to manage, and that causes a problem when it comes to collaboration (the main keep reason). Joe "I need help with Auburn University" Editor isn't going to start randomly asking people for help because they are in an easy to get into category. It's going to take more effort to do that, and most likely a waste of his time. Joe Editor doesn't care that a wikiproject is harder to manage or has more bureaucracy. He'll care that he can ask one question and get an answer, instead of asking many and possibly getting none. --Kbdank71 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I could not possibly disagree more with your view on these categories. If I have a question about Auburn University, never would I go ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, (a large group) if I know I can find one editor from a specific university's category. In my experience, Joe Editor cares very much if a WikiProject is harder and more bureaucratic. Why the hell would I deal with an overly bureaucratic group of semi-related editors, when I can go directly to an editor associated with the university I'm needing information on? Further, I find :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater much more useful than Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater, a list that attempts to accomplish the same. MfD that list, and you'll have my support. A category does the job better. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::"Easier to manage..." - Huh? Maybe if you own a bot. Perhaps it's subjective, but I've always found lists to be easier to manage than categories, and clearer too. (See also the current #3 at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Disadvantages of categories - "Difficult to maintain".) - jc37 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is an editing guideline referring to generally accepted standards for the namespace, not userspace. A massive list of editors would be much more difficult to maintain, as a quick look at Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater will show. - auburnpilot talk 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Here's the link: WP:CLS - Please feel free to read it over again. It compares the benefits and liabilities of categories, lists, and navboxes. And no matter what is placed in a category, it still has certain limiations, and strengths. Same with lists, and so on. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, I have for one of my alma maters. Others probably have but this is such a sparcely attended page on Wikipedia that getting a large sample is not practical. Mikebar 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::For "such a Sparcely attended page", this discussion is larger than many listed on other XfD pages... - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I now am convinced Wikipedia is not a democracy given what transpires here. Mikebar 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per much of the above. I note in particular the comment that there is a social aspect to Wikipedia, and while I know as well as everyone else that Wikipedia is not a social network, that social aspect is part of what makes this project appealing. It's a collaborative effort to write a free encyclopedia, and if these user categories aid in that in any way, they strike me as being worth keeping. I know I've used the user cat from my own alma mater to track down others for input on that particular article; I imagine I'm not the only one. Esrever 02:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: Would you happen to have a link to that example? - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:: Can you actually be serious? Who would lie about that, and why would it be worth anyone's time for Esrever to provide a link? Nik-renshaw 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Because we're all Wikipedians here, and there is nothing wrong with asking for a link in an XfD discussion. It has nothing to do with lying (or truth), it has to do with verifiability. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per the compelling arguments above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep although I've found collaboration on articles usually starts with a note on my Talk Page such as I see that you've contributed a lot to such and such an article, etc. I don't understand the comment made above about frat boys or sorority girls. I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. clariosophic 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
clarification I believe the theory (whether sincerely intended or not) was that these two classes of desultory participants in the Wikipedia project might be roused from torpor by the threat that their beloved alma mater's alum category is in danger of deletion, and maybe get more active in the project as a whole? --Orange Mike 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep; rehashing the userbox wars would be a waste of time. Humans are social; 'nuff said. SparsityProblem 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:Once again, this has nothing to do with the userboxes. This is only about the categories. I wonder how many other commenters in this discussion are under the same misunderstanding. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::If the above comment is confusing deletion of the category for deletion of the userbox, or assuming that one entails the other, then yes, that'd be a "misunderstanding". If it's commenting on the similarity of pointlessness of the whole endeavour, the needless effort expended, and angst caused, then that's an "insight". Alai 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - In my opinion, 672 is a bit much, but it is harmless, and I could see this being used for collaboration. One possible scenario: Someone needs information on a particular part of a university, and a person who went there would be able to find the information easier, for various reasons. Looking through a couple of subcats would make that an easy job. To summarize: Harmless, and could help with collaboration. Neranei (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - in line with other comments regarding collaboration. See also the WikiProject Universities, for whom lists of alumni may be useful for the purposes of collaboration on certain articles. Coldmachine^Talk 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian Chinese instrument players ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian Chinese instrument players}}

:Nominator's rationale: This intermediary categorisation layer seems unnecessary (i.e. overcategorisation) since :Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument is not so large as to require subcategorisation. Upmerging is not required since all of the subcategories already appear in the parent category.

Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am not sure if anyone uses these cats at all. Marlith ^T/C 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - "First they came for the Chinese instrument players, but I did nothing, because I wasn't a Chinese instrument player ..."Michael J Swassing 04:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Godwin's law, anyone? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If we were coming for the Chinese instrument players, you would have a good argument. But I'm thinking it doesn't have the same ring when it ends "...but I did nothing, because I wasn't a Chinese instrument player category." --Kbdank71 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - All subcategories should be upmerged. This form of subcategorization is not useful at all, we get no benefit from distinguishing people who play Chinese instruments from any other instruments. If allowed could set precedent for an instrument category for each of all the 270+ countries. VegaDark (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If you want to collaborate with someone because you play the Guqin, then I suggest you start by editing Guqin. --Kbdank71 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Former Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Former Wikipedians Considering the fact that it is not uncommon for Wikipedians to abandon one account to edit with another, the right to vanish or the right to leave, as well as GoodBye, this category are just an arbitrary list of usernames. And "whatlinkshere" will tell you who has the associated template applied to their userpage. - jc37 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This category is not really a category of former Wikipedians; it's just a category of editors who happen to use one of two or three particular templates. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of accounts that edited for a short while and subsequently lapsed into inactivity. Besides, what collaborative purpose could this category have? All of the people in it are no longer here to collaborate on articles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per JC and Black Falcon. —Scouter Sig 14:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kbdank71 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom... no real collaborative purpose behind this. Also, user page notices oft suffice for this. SkierRMH 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete there's Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians for this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, we need to have something to remember them by. Marlith ^T/C 04:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We have their user pages. Don't need a category. --Kbdank71 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep We have the category quite specifically to find the user pages. DGG (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you need to find them? --Kbdank71 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If someone wants to declare that they have chosen to stop editing on Wikipedia, this tells us something that an unused username does not because the unused username might simply mean that person has decided to stop editing under that name and started a new one. Categorization is useful in case anyone ever found it useful to contact former Wikipedians (via e-mail since they supposedly have stopped checking their talk pages) regarding their experiences. Doczilla 05:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The category would only be useful in that respect if one wanted to contact a large group of former Wikipedians, rather than a specific user (although, it could also be done via the "whatlinkshere" of the userboxes that populate these categories ... and I'm not certain that the former editors would appreciate being contacted – but that's another issue). Is that what you had in mind? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

= October 28 =

== Wikipedians by activity (relisted) ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep deleted. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

::Category:Wikipedians who are partially active

These categories were deleted after this UCfD. At a deletion review, the consensus was that the initial close was endorsed, but more discussion was needed on the utility of these categories. Anyone who feels strongly that these categories are useful, and can articulate why, speak up. I will post links to this discussion in a couple of places. Chick Bowen 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)}}} Since this was directed here via DRV and no one has commented, I am going to let this sit here for 5 additional days before decision. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::I find "not currently active" useful. The history of participation in WP is important, and for newcomers, it is useful for orientation to see even such an approximate and partial grouping. This is true to a lesser degree for "partial"but if people find their callingthemselves significant, then perhaps it is.DGG (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all per my reasons under "Former Wikipedians" above. - jc37 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted per my comment at #Category:Former Wikipedians. I can see why someone would want to know whether a particular editor is currently inactive or partially active. However, the userpage notice more than suffices for that (the user's contributions history is another tool). The category is little more than an add-on to a userbox. Incidentally, what does it mean to have a category of "partially active" editors? The phrase means different things to different people. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted per others. --Kbdank71 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted Concur with jc37... And these are just simply too vague; I guess an individual putting themselves into one of these would be a valid self-evaluation, but wouldn't the userpage notices would suffice. (and as a ;)... how about stirring the pot and putting anyone with less than 70,000 edits on the 'partially active' list? :) SkierRMH 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington State University ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no decision requested. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington State University}}

I came to this page to ask for assistance, as I have screwed something up in creating the user category: :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington State University. However, upon review of the previous discussions, it looks like the trend is to remove user categories that serve no collaborative purpose. I do not see how alma mater has greater usefulness then the other user categories which have been previously deleted.Michael J Swassing 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. While there is indeed a trend to remove user categories that lack a collaborative purpose, a previous discussion for 'alma mater' user categories for post-secondary institutions resulted in a 'keep' outcome (the categories have also been nominated above). You can, of course, still request deletion of this particular category since you are its creator and sole member. Incidentally, what seems to be wrong with how you created the category? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for your interest, Black Falcon. I have no particular interest in deleting this one category, or any other, but I have become increasingly aware of the disappearance of user categories that I found useful in identifying people who may have an interest in a particular topic, or have a useful life experience. I appear to be the only member of this particular user category, which does not trouble me as others may join later. That same strategy has not worked for long with user categories not alma mater related.
:I found this page because I was looking for help with the category, and appreciate your offer of assistance. However, looking over the page I think a casual observer would agree this is not so much "Categories for discussion" as it is "Categories to be voted off the island."
:The specific problem is a looping link. I do not know the correct computer term, but the category is a sub category of itself. I have know idea how I did that, and have tried to undo it. You got any ideas on that?Michael J Swassing 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::If you truly do not wish to see this category deleted, then perhaps you should withdraw the nomination. So far, you and I are the only participants in the discussion, and it seems that neither one of us actually wants deletion in this case.
::While many self-identification categories have been deleted (with the affiliations expressed ranging from political ideology to something as trivial as the colour of the user's iPod), I think only a few could be classified as 'useful' beyond a mere userpage notice. Indeed, most discussions on this page that end in a 'delete' outcome are characterised by a distinct lack of any explanation for why the nominated category is useful.
::As for the looping link, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_wsu&diff=167892840&oldid=85837849 this edit] should take care of it; it limits the userbox to categorising only pages in the user namespace. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I appreciate your assistance in this matter. The interaction that I have had with you here is precisely what I had hoped for when I entered the page titled "User categories for discussion." That being a collaborative discussion about a difficulty involving a user category. I was completely unaware that the assumption of entering a category into discussion would place it into consideration for an up or down vote.
:::As I have tried to make clear, I am disturbed at what I have found here. And it explains the gradual disappearance of user categories that I have found useful in the past.Michael J Swassing 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I was happy to help. As for the CFD process, it's not a vote per se, but it is an evaluation of whether a category should be retained, merged, renamed, or deleted. I suppose that this structure is a result of the fact that user categories were formerly discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, which has since been renamed. Anyway, since none of those four listed outcomes is the goal in this case, do you mind if I close this discussion? Neither of us favours deletion and, unless I've missed something, there seems little reason to leave the nomination open for the full 5 days. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with closing this discussion. This sub-cat is now part of the discussion regarding the category wikipedians by alma matter, and I won't make any changes with this sub-cat it until that discussion closes.Michael J Swassing 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

= October 27 =

== Category:Wikipedians studying in an ESF school ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians studying in an ESF school}}

:Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats and several subsequent supporting precedents. The ESF operates about 20 schools in Hong Kong, all of them below the post-secondary level. Thus, this is a (single-user) category for Wikipedians who attend a primary or secondary school, or possibly a kindergarten. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per precedents. Doczilla 05:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Demoscener Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Demoscener Wikipedians}}

:Previously deleted after an under-attended debate. Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 22 was to overturn and relist. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral per nom. :) --WaltCip 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Listing Wikipedians by hobby does not help build an encyclopaedia. Lurker (said · done) 14:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete As Lurker said listing wikipedians by hobby is not encyclopedia building. Also considering that in its 22 month history not one person has been a "member" of this category I say deletion would be a right decision. TonyBallioni 12:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:comment its a bit different than just a hobby. I don't want to repeat everything that was said in the same discussion just a few months earlier. I provided a link to the discussion in my vote further below. I hope this might makes you reconsider. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral just because. (Well, okay, really I just want to see how my new signature looks.) — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete When not even its creator is a member, I think it's safe to delete a user category. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Comment OTOH, it's possible that this category was cleaned out after the previous delete. In that case, disregard my previous "vote". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, I saw no point in repopulating it before this debate was concluded. Sorry, should have pointed that out in the nomination. Chick Bowen 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Lurker. --Kbdank71 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Demoscener_Wikipedians --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:comment I also added the reference to the previous discussion at Category_talk:Demoscener_Wikipedians --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

= October 26 =

==[[:Category:NarniaWebbers]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|NarniaWebbers}}

:Delete serves no collaborative purpose, is less defining than numerous other user cats already deleted and it only has one person. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Orphaned category.--WaltCip 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as orphaned. SkierRMH 04:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a category that does not foster collaboration for a website for which we don't have an article (see NarniaWeb and NarniaWeb.com). Also per this precedent, which resulted in the deletion of several similar categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, especially Black Falcon. GlassCobra 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as orpthaned. Marlith ^T/C 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete orphan. Doczilla 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

= October 25 =

== Category:NAUI divers ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|NAUI divers}}

:Merge into :Category:Wikipedians who scuba dive, or at least Rename to :Category:Wikipedian National Association of Underwater Instructors divers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This seems reminiscent of the pilots' catgories recently. "The National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) is a United States-based SCUBA diver training organization concerned with promoting dive safety through education." - So how about: :Category:Wikipedian SCUBA instructors, or something similar? - jc37 09:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:To clarify, my suggestion of :Category:Wikipedian SCUBA instructors, is comparable to :Category:Wikipedian flight instructors. A general use category would be better than one targeting a specific organisation. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not foster collaboration. There is no need for a categories describing one's hobbies or job. A userbox or notice on talk page is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Lurker (said · done) 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. There are sure to be dozens or hundreds of scuba diving training organisations across the world; although NAUI may be a prominent one in the USA, I do not think it merits a separate category, especially when it contains only a single user. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. NOTE: the up-category says it is only for certified divers, which would exclude beginners. That sets up a scene for two user cats. —Scouter Sig 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename/Keep This is a relatively new category. Limited number of users is not an argument for delete/merge when time should be considered. This category is part of a plan to collect more users for WikiProject SCUBA. The category was created to collect expertise on a specific topic. The end goal is finding differences/discrepancies in diver training methods across diver organizations. While I agree that categories should not be made with the goal of "social networking," no category should be deleted/merged when it serves the purpose of gathering expertise and fostering collaboration. - Gr0ff 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename per Prove It and Gr0ff. Provides pool of expertise, assuming more people join this new category. - 199.67.140.242 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Mystic Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Mystic Wikipedians - See Mysticism - "The state of oneness has many names depending on the mystical system: Illumination, Union (Christianity), Irfan (Islam), Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism), Samadhi (Hinduism), to name a few." -This is inclusive of nearly everyone who identifies with a religion. This is waaaay too broadly inclusive. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not all religions have an inherent mystical element. Many religions focus on the worship of or tribute to some external entity. One can practice almost any religion either with or without mystical consideration. This category focuses on the concept of mysticism itself, rather than on any particular practice. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As already noted, the category's scope is much too broad (e.g. see Mysticism#Mystical traditions); this lack of specificity foils any attempt to try to infer a relationship between identification and knowledge or interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename as "Wikipedians interested in Mysticism". There are religious systems which incorporate mysticism, but mysticism still stands on its own as an ideology. Also, such mystic religions have mysticism as a common point of belief, and not just in name. This is especially useful for those who which to contribute to articles about a variety of mystical traditions and mysticism in general, rather than focusing on only one or a few traditions. I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as mystic and those who are interested in mysticism without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not foster collaboration. Lurker (said · done) 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Too wide of a scope to be useful for collaboration purposes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per Bigwyrm. Identification with likely indicates knowledge of. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as simply too broad. Renaming to "Wikipedians interested in Mysticism" still begs the question, which type of mysticism? all? would still be inclusive to anyone who id's with a religion. SkierRMH 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't there be subcategories (requiring a metacategory)? bd2412 T 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the vagueness associated with affiliating as a 'mystic', we could not accurately implement this type of subcategorisation. I think it would be better to allow the "interested in..." categories to be created and populated naturally (i.e. on the basis of self-identification, rather than our interpretation of it). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete vaguely named, excessively broad category. Doczilla 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Realist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Realist Wikipedians - See Realism <-- Click on the link, and see how really broad and unmanageable this category is. It even covers separate disciplines, such as art, law, philosophy, physics, international relations, literature, and more. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Realism is not a philosophy or an ideology; it is the name of several dozen related and unrelated artistic, literary, philosophical, and political theories, movements, and worldviews. This category simply cannot foster encyclopedic collaboration because it does not express a single affiliation. The label "realist" is so broad that it is impossible to know specifically what information this category is supposed to convey; therefore, it conveys to useful information. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in Political realism", as that seems to be the intent. See the article for details. Also, reparent under Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, as suggested by Black Falcon in the old discussion for :Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How did you come to that conclusion? As I look over the single member's Userpage (yes, only one member of the category, its creator), I see more of an interest in law than politics, though since he placed it in the philosophy category, he could mean it philosophically as well. Note that he also created (and is the only user) of :Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians, as well. In any case, in looking over his userpage, I don't think he created the categories for collaboration so much as identification. And as we've done in the past in a few cases of single-user categories, they can remain as redlinks on his userpage. (See User:Kbdank71 for another example of a redlinked category notice.) - jc37 08:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The close correlation between political realism (which is also apparently referred to as just "realism") and structural realism (or neorealism), and the fact that, as you pointed out, the same user started both of those user categories tend to support my conclusion that the intended "realism" in this category is political realism. If you really want to know with certainty what he intended, you could always ask him. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey now, how'd I get pulled into this? My red-linked cat was never meant to be a real category, just humor. You make a good point, however. If you are the only person in the category, you don't actually need the category to exist in order to self-identify. There is certainly no collaboration going on. I also agree with Black Falcon's assessment of the situation, and think it should be deleted. --Kbdank71 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Too wide of a scope to be useful for collaboration purposes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Too braod to be of any use at all, even if cats for philosophical and political movements were a good idea- past discussions show consensus they are not. Lurker (said · done) 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as too broad in scope to be useful. SkierRMH 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians - Neorealism - A political ideology. The political ideology cats were deleted, as shown here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom and precedent. Lurker (said · done) 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in neorealism" or "...structural realism". The broader category will include both those users who identify as neorealist and those who are interested in the subject without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
A broader "interested in..." category should not include those who merely identify as neorealist. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom & precedent... renaming with either 'neorelism' or 'structural realism' still refers back to political ideologies. SkierRMH 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in neorealism and recategorise into :Category:Wikipedians interested in political science. I would be equally satisfied with both options ... unlike affiliations like feminist, Marxist, realist, theist, or atheist, "structural realism" is rather narrow in scope. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Bright Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Bright Wikipedians - recently turned into a redirect to:

::Category:Wikipedian Brights - Brights movement

:"The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view." - Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. Oppose renaming to "interested in -ism", as nowhere near the category's intent. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delete the re-direct only but not :Category:Wikipedian Brights. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement or possibly :Category:Wikipedians interested in Brights, though I prefer the former. This category may have a limited scope, but it still has value for collaboration. Also, the fact that "Brights movement" and "New age movement" both have the word "movement" in them does not imply a connection. Compare "bowel movement" and "orchestral movement". I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as Bright and those who are interested in Brights without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there was an adjective (two actually) before "movement". Also, as I look even more closely over Brights movement, it would seem that this is not unlike other irreligion/pseudoreligion social movements, such as Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Pink Unicorn (the Wikipedian categories of which were both previously deleted, as shown here). See also Template:Irreligion. But the main point for me is this: "The brights movement has been formed as an Internet constituency of individuals. Its hub is the The Brights' Net web site.[http://www.the-brights.net], but each individual has autonomy to speak for him/herself. The Brights' Net's tagline is now "Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview"." - If you click on [http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1 this link] they define themselves as: "The noun form of the term bright refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview." - The article has no category of itself, simply because it's naturalism. Though I doubt that those in the category would agree with merging/renaming to "Wikipedians interested in naturalism". The category is intended to show identification with the internet meme of the Brights movement. It's not intended for collaboration (indeed there is only a single article). - jc37 07:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The FSM and IPU are, of course, parody "social movements". The Brights movement is not. I beilieve you are wrong about this, and in this case your POV about the utility or inutility of an "irreligion" category as opposed to a "religion" category is not appropriate. The category HERE, however, :Category:Bright Wikipedians, is up for deletion and is a redirect. That category could be deleted as it is merely a re-direct. 119 Wikipedians identify as Bright. 5 or so identify as Methodists. My stars, JC37. Have you nothing better to do? -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Bigwyrm, the "interested in" category re-name isn't really all that useful. One can be interested in all sorts of things. One can be interested in and hostile to a topic, for instance. -- Evertype·✆ 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you comment on the content (in this case the specific category up for discussion), and not on other editors. That aside, both the category redirect and the category are tagged and nominated. Also, this isn't about numbers of members. There have been much larger categories deleted/renamed/merged. As stated previously, just because someone may choose to use a userbox, doesn't mean that the userbox needs a category to "assist" in identification. And they can add "This user is a Bright" or whatever, just as easily to their userpage as adding a category. A userpage notice is enough for that. This is obviuosly not intended for collaboration. - jc37 08:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Evertype, I think that having editors with a variety of viewpoints in a category is actually a benefit to the "Wikipedians interested in <foo>" renames. Making the name imply an interest rather than explicitly stating an opinion makes the category a neutral ground, and more useful for collaboration. It would also reduce the concern that people would use categories for biasing a discussion, because not everybody in an interest-based category will support any particular idea. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I endorse Bigwyrm's view of more-inclusive categories, for the reasons he stated, and also as a means of reducing the extensive overcategorization that currently exists in the user categorization system. Horologium t-c 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Delete the redirect. Just to clarify, I only want the active category kept. The redirect can go. In particular, I remember reading somewhere that category redirects are considered harmful under the current version of MediaWiki. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP of category. JC37's assertion, "This is obviously not intended for collaboration" is nothing more than his assertion. :Category:Wikipedian Brights should be kept. :Category:Bright Wikipedians could be deleted. Also I do not favour re-naming as "interested in" is too ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 08:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's solely my "assertion", please show some examples of what would be collaborated on. - jc37 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion is a negative proposition. Frankly I have better things to do this morning that argue with you on your witch-hunt. Clearly you want to sweep the Wikipedia clean of categories you dislike, despite the fact that they do no harm whatsoever. All you have done is gone to :Category:Wikipedians_by_philosophy and proposed everything for deletion. It is difficult to see your activity as anything but bad-faith POV on your part. And don't lecture me about going off-topic of this particular CfD. I sincerely hope you fail in your efforts. -- Evertype·✆ 08:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the acceptable user category types is the "category for basic demographic information". I feel it's not controversial to state that many people would include a person's religion, as this gives significant information about how someone was raised, defines their POV on a range of topics, and allows like minded Wikipedians to identify each other. I am not religious, but I don't find that to be a satisfactory definition of my world view (this gets to the heart of why I find Bright to be a worthwhile label in general). Identifying myself as a Bright is useful for the same reasons: I am giving information about how I was raised, defining my POV on topics related to the supernatural (including all religions), and allowing other users to find a like minded Wikipedian for tasks such as maintaining objectivity in articles pertaining to supernatural beliefs (an important point given the ubiquitous nature of unquestioned religious belief in many, if not most societies).--DJIndica 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, recent consensus seems to be that categories that are just for "basic demographic infomation" aren't enough to justify a Wikipedian category. Collaboration of some type seems to be the defining factor. So "by location", because it shows the possibility to provide "free" images, or "by language", to help with translation, or "by interest" for collaborating on related articles. The demographic information categories, such as by gender, marital status, lifestyle, birth year, generation, etc have all been deleted. - jc37 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
So, when do you plan to nominate Category:Christian Wikipedians for deletion? — DIEGO ^talk 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That is an WP:ALLORNOTHING comment. But I'll try to answer anyway. It's been argued that even though they list as identification categories, the religion categories are being used as "by interest" categories. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but that has been the arguement. And there are quite a few articles directly related to each religion for collaboration. That isn't true about Brights movement. - jc37 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe DJIndica's arguments clarify what kind of articles would directly benefit from collaboration between Brights. And I too believe that not nominating :Category:Christian Wikipedians for deletion makes an excellent case for not nominating :Category:Wikipedian Brights for deletion either. Dan Pelleg 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons that :Category:Christian Wikipedians was not nominated in this batch of nominations is because all of these nominations were directed towards :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, not :Category:Wikipedians by religion. Since :Category:Bright Wikipedians is a subcat of the philosophy AND the religion parent cats, it has been affected by twice as many discussions. (It was also a target when all of the religion cats were discussed in June and July.) Since :Category:Christian Wikipedians (which seems to be a favorite target of the Brights supporters for some reason) is only categorized under :Category:Wikipedians by religion, it would not be included in a discussion regarding :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. Do you see why overcategorization is a bad thing? FWIW, when the category was created in January 2006, it was a member of three parent categories, one of which (:Category:Irreligious Wikipedians) was deleted in UCFD in June. (That discussion was only about the category itself, not the child cats within it.) Horologium t-c 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to second [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_categories_for_discussion&diff=138741198&oldid=138741055 this user's] comments when the discussion was about religious categories. I believe the same arguments hold true here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Possible uses for collaboration:
#Creating the aforementioned :Category:Brights movement.
#Creating the article Paul Geisert (which currently redirects to Brights movement).
#Collaborating on the article Mynga Futrell.
#Collaborating on other irreligion articles in order to provide balance.
#Collaborating on other religion articles in order to provide balance.
#Creating a {{tl|Brights movement}} template.
#Collaboration on the article naturalistic.
#Collaboration on any of the Brights listed in the article (including Richard Dawkins).
#Creating a List of Brights similar to the List of atheists.
#(Obvious one) Collaborating on the Brights movement article itself.
As with any article/category/template on Wikipedia the reasons for deletion need to at least meet or exceed the reasons for keeping. Collaboration is a good reason to keep. This user category is not overly broad (which is the only reason I see for its nomination) and it is not divisive. The only other argument I can think of for deletion is to keep down the "noise" in Wikipedia. I believe the possibilities for collaboration out-weigh the possibility of it introducing noise. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Kepp. "Broad cultural movement"? Don't you think that's a bit much? No renaming either. Honestly, these types of nominations are a waste of time and do not benifit the encyclopedia. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If this is kepped, we need to create :Category:Dim wikipedians. This is a category for self-identification "This is a listing of Wikipedia users who self-label as brights". Not used for collaboration. --Kbdank71 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per New Age Wikipedians discussion. Lurker (said · done) 15:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and (possibly) rename. The reasoning behind the nomination is flawed. The brights movement is not comparible to the New age movement. New age consists of a large group of vague, loosely associated philosophies and practices, has no membership criteria (other than self-identification), and cannot be characterized as a singular ideology. On the other hand, the brights movement has a singular purpose, is largely centralized (as Brights' Net, with actual membership rolls, etc.), and has a unifying mission. If the New age precedent is the only argument for deletion, it simply does not hold up. — DIEGO ^talk 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How about: "This is a category for self-identification This is a listing of Wikipedia users who self-label as brights. Not used for collaboration." ? Didn't mention New age at all. --Kbdank71 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Show me some evidence that it is not now, or could not be used for collaboration in the future. "Not used for collaboration" is an unfounded value judgement that has no place in a deletion discussion. I don't personally identify as a Bright, but I agree that this seems like somewhat of a witchhunt. If "Christian Wikipedians" is considered a useful category, then the same reasoning would apply to any other self-identified user category related to religious ideology. I personally think that user categories are particularly helpful with more obscure ideologies. You can't throw a brick without hitting a Christian, but it could be somewhat more difficult to find a Bright, Transhumanist, Bayesian, etc. to collaborate with if not for the user categories. — DIEGO ^talk 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Not now: This is a listing of Wikipedia users who self-label as brights. Self-label, not collaborate. "Or could not in the future"? That is no reason to keep. If it were, I could create :Category:Wikipedians who delight in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse simply because at some point between now and infinity (aka The Future), someone might want to collaborate on the Bazouki. Or create any category because someone, some time, might create an article that would fit in it. If you want to collaborate, wikiprojects work better. --Kbdank71 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The way I would consider to use a category like this is when for example I need to summarize the views of Alvin Plantinga, it could be useful to ask a Christian Wikipedian to check that I've been fair. I don't see, how the Bright category isn't exactly as useful when someone would need help checking that they have represented Dawkins et al appropriately. Could you instead of ridiculing us, explain why this category is different from the religious ones. --Merzul 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it should be deleted because it was the same as religious categories. --Kbdank71 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What? — DIEGO ^talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
explain why this category is different from the religious ones. That's what I was responding to. --Kbdank71 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has said that you favored deletion becasue it was the "same as religious categories". That has been offered as an argument to keep. Also, how does the fact that it is a category of users who self-label as Brights indicate that it is not used for collaboration? And by the way, if there is an actual, notable group that "delight in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse", and this group is large, geographically diverse, and is well-documented in reliable sources (like the brights movement), I would have no problem with that category. The point is, Christian Wikipedians and Bright Wikipedians are categories of users who self identify according to religious ideology. So why is Brights being targeted according to the self-identification/no collaboration rationale (and don't forget that the reason stated above; too much like "new age")? — DIEGO ^talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"geographically diverse" - As an internet site, it's international in scope. As an article, it's singular in scope. Note also that non-reference-based Wikipedians by website categories have also been deleted recently. So there's another precedent to delete a social community. - jc37 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (edit conflict with Diego, somewhat similar) Please don't read too much into this, I couldn't care less about these User Categories. But could you guys do something to alleviate my concern that this campaign is unfairly targeting secular ideologies. Isn't :Category:Christian Wikipedians just as much a listing of users who self-label as Christian. Why are religious categories more useful for collaboration than the secular ones? --Merzul 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This was listed under :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. (All of which are, or will be nominated.) And the article states that it's not a religion but a "social movement". Hence the comparison to the New Age movement cat which was deleted. This is just once of many listed in :Category:Social movements. - jc37 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Merzul. The :Category:Christian Wikipedians category states just the same thing about self-identification: "This page contains Wikipedians who have identified themselves (at least on Wikipedia) as being adherents of Christianity". It doesn't STATE that it is for collaborative purposes, but it doesn't have to, either. That categore, and :Category:Wikipedian Brights, both have a place and neither should be deleted. And come ON, JC37, of course you cannot classify the Brights as a "religion". That doesn't mean that as a ethical system it is not equivalent. Your activity with regard to this category is ill-founded and misguided. It seems to me you just want to feel good about yourself by deleting a whole lot of things that just annoy you for some reason. -- Evertype·✆ 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As I have suggested to you previously, you may want to do a bit of research, rather than presume what my motivations are. I believe I've stated them rather clearly in several locations. (Including this very thread.) But that aside, again, I ask you to please comment on the topic, not a person, and since you seem to have time now, please feel free to provide the examples that you claimed to not have time for earlier... - jc37 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
While it may not be a "religion", Wikipedian Brights is a category based on religious ideology. Just becasue the ideology exists to promote a secular worldview (meaning it isn't actually a religion), it is still very much a religious ideology (i.e., secularism would not exist without the counterpoint of religion). It is unfair to target categories based on self-identified anti-religious (not non-religious) ideologies simply because they would be inapproiate to classify under a "religion" category. The Brights movement would not exist without religion, and it is just as valid as Christian Wikipedians or any other self-identification user category. Also, your reasoning in deleting the Wikipedians by philosophy categories would seem to favor deleting the religion categories as well. Why haven't you nominated them? Could it possibly be that nominating Category:Christian Wikipedians for deletion could stir up quite a hornet's nest (of "biblical" proportions)? — DIEGO ^talk 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to delete this category. Merzul sums it up nicely.--Boreas 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename bright is a common use word and these so-called brightists have no right to claim the word as their own, or at least not on wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, bright is a common use adjective, but Bright is not a common use noun (I'm not aware of any other use as a noun). I believe this issue has been solved by redirecting "Bright Wikipedians" to "Wikipedian Brights", so it is clear that Bright is being used as a noun and no one is claiming the adjective for themselves. — DIEGO ^talk 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Bright is not a common use noun. Compare with "Gay", which many say should not be used for homosexuals. The Bright Movement is a religion of which I am proud to be an adherent. Mike Nassau —Preceding comment was added at 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This discussion is a perfect example of why the Brights felt the need to organize: the religious don't perceive our worldview to be valid; if you want to get rid of us, you'd better get rid of all religious, philosophical, ethical, & political (which is, after all, simply a practical application of the above listings) wikipedian groups. Sketch051 21:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. And please do not remove or relocate my text again. This is the third time I'm voting here. What's been happening here is unreasonable, as is the recurring call to "do a little research before you say this or that" – what's due here are clearly visible notifications and explanations before removing, merging and editing other people's votes, archiving old polls, re-nominating and so on. My reasons for opposing this deletion are given at Evertype·✆'s vote after DJIndica's, jc37's, DIEGO's and jc37's responses to it. Dan Pelleg 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The Brights are a group with membership, a mailing list, a newsletter, etc.. It is composed largely of scientific skeptics, atheists, naturalists, humanists, etc.. The category does indeed serve to aid in various forms of largely informal collaboration and communication both on- and off-wiki. Non-Brights should keep their mitts out of our pie and quit meddling in that which they don't understand. This is a meddlesome and rather foolish proposition. -- Fyslee / talk 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement per Bigwyrm. I looked at both articles mentioned in the category page, being Brights movement and naturalism (philosophy), and the movement is obviously not a religion. Wait, I just reread the running discussion and relooked at the cat. KEEP as a Wikipedians by philosophy category (though it needs a name that matches the others in that category) since this is a philosophy, not a religion. And while I decidedly do not agree with what they say, it seems a substantial enough 'movement' or 'philosophy' or 'not-religion' to identify users so that they can more easily communicate with each other on topics they share information and interest in. "Brights" should become more active in the WikiProject Philosophy, since they have no 'bright-related' categories, it seems. —Scouter Sig 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Bright Wikipedians" sounds like "Smart Wikipedians," and so may not be a good category name. Just an afterthought. —Scouter Sig 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why the old "Bright Wikipedians" re-directs to the newer, more accurate "Wikipedian Brights". -- Evertype·✆ 09:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There is a Category for Christian Wikipedians so I do not see why a philosophical persuasion which is just as valid should not not be given equal status. It is a fairly new descriptor, but if the number of self identifying Brights continues to grow at the current rate then very soon we shall have occasions to use the category as a collaboration tool. I must disagree with the "Interested in the Brights Movement" label as it both makes the category title unwieldy and also implies that those wikipedians who are members of the group are not neccessarily themselves Brights. I therefore move that the title be changed to "Wikipedian Brights" with no subsequent subtitle as this leaves no ambiguity as to who the members of the group are purporting to be. Heliotic 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am not going to debate the validity of the user category, but I do feel the need to address another example of overcategorization. This cat is a subcat of both :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and :Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians, itself a subcat of :Category:Wikipedians by religion. I have seen keep arguments for this category that state that it is a religious belief, and keep arguments which state that it is not a religious belief. Can we have the supporters decide which one it is, and then delete the other? I can justify the retention of the category in one category or the other, but not both, although I prefer renaming the category as suggested above. I suspect that quite a few of the deletion discussions over the past few months might have been averted by simply restraining an urge to stuff a user category into multiple parent groups. Horologium t-c 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Who claimed that the brights movement was a "religious belief"? Anyway, I do believe it should be in a subcat of Wikipedians by religion if that is what it takes to prevent it from being deleted, since the people bent on the outright elimination of vast swaths of user categories appear afraid to touch Wikipedians by Religion. — DIEGO ^talk 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, wow. You might want to strike that after viewing Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by religion (and the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25), and before that there was Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Category:Wikipedians by religion and all subcats. And pardon me, "religious ideology" vice "religious belief" (a quote from you, earlier). Horologium t-c 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(added later) And having this category in two parents increases the chance that it will get nuked in a mass deletion; if either all of the subcats of :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy or :Category:Wikipedians by religion are deleted, this cat will be deleted, regardless of the number of parent categories with which it is associated. Find one, and defend it from that position, rather than try and retain it on multiple fronts. Horologium t-c 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I think it should only be in a subcat of Wikipedians by Religion. If people decide, for whatever reason, to delete all user categories based on self-identification with a religious ideology, so be it (however misguided that would be). My only point is that certain categories should not be singled out for deletion according to a rationale that should apply to all such categories. Wikipedian Brights is no more or less worthy of deletion than Christian Wikipedians. Also, is there ever any valid reason (apart from transcribing spoken language or fictional dialogue) to write the word um except to be smug? — DIEGO ^talk 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(Um) Why do I need to strike anything? Wikipedians by Religion was obviously not deleted for long, since :Category:Wikipedians by religion and :Category:Christian Wikipedians are not red links, and they are not up for deletion now, which was exactly my point. Why not? Why were other religion categories spared from the latest user category purge? Are self-identified religious beliefs really any different than self-identified philosophical beliefs? And I already made myself clear how something can be a "religious ideology" (in the sense that it is an ideology that derives its entire existence from from religion) without being a "religious belief". "Belief" and "non-belief" are simply two sides of the same ideological/religious coin; they are both ideologies, but only one is a "belief" in the religious sense. — DIEGO ^talk 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My point, which I am apparently having difficulty expressing clearly, is twofold: First, the Religion categories are not sacred cows (pardon the pun) immune from discussion, which invalidates your diatribe about the nominator being "afraid to touch Wikipedians by Religion", and secondly, the religion categories were not in this round of deletion because the discussion revolves around :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and all of its subcats, of which the Christian cat is not a member (and never has been, judging from the edit history of the category). The supporters of this category seem to be confused as to whether it is a philosophy category or a religion category, or something else altogether. And while it is not apparent from the category history, The brights cat would have been nuked with all of the religion categories; it was not tagged because it was buried several layers down inside :Category:Wikipedians by religion and didn't get tagged with most of the other subcats when they were all nominated for deletion (twice). So far, most of the keep arguments seem to revolve around "The Christians have a category, so I want one too", or variations thereof. That is not a rationale for retaining either category. Horologium t-c 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (This is not about the topic, unfortunately, but about the discussion, and those discussing. I have no problem with this - and all other such commentary - being moved to the talk page.) - I really had hoped that this discussion would be more civil than the last. But really, attacking anyone who comments is a bad idea. I've suggested to those who continually feel the need to attack me, that they perhaps should do some research before making such blanket accusations. We are Wikipedians, after all, and I would "think" that looking for references would be second nature. I think it's truly sad that a discussion about a category, regardless of its topic, should bring such polemic divisiveness. Yes, I realise that when people identify with something they may get "attached" to it, and as such, when they feel it's being "attacked", they might defend it in any manner they choose. Even if such manner is no where near Wikiquette, or civility. The fact of the matter is that regardless if the christian Wikipedian category , the bright Wikipedian category, or even every Wikipedian category, is deleted, Wikipedia won't crash and burn. Saying that "I want mine if they get theirs" has nothing to do with collaboration, but instead has everything to do with identification, and honestly, ownership. The idea that you need a category to show bias, so that you can get someone of what you presume is a contrary bias to proofread your work seem to be begging the question of good faith to me. The whole idea of verifiability would seem to indicate that all one should be doing is summarising reference material of some kind. You know what hasn't happened here is discussion of the article. It's a single article. And as VegaDark notes in another discussion below: "If categories were allowed for collaborating on a single article, that would set precedent to allow 2,062,523 categories. " - This article doesn't even have a related category. But it needs a Wikipedian category? Scream, shout, make accusations, demand equal representation, demand equal rights, claim that you've been abused, claim that no one understands you, claim that it's unfair, demand that you should get what's yours. Feel free (though if you do it too intently, there may be repercussions outside of this venue). But realise, that none of those rationales qualifies for a reason to keep. So be aware that it's likely whomever closes this may be discounting your comments when attempting to determine consensus (as, as we all know, this is not a "vote"). Rack up a 1000 "keeps". If you don't provide something more substantial, don't be surprised at the results. I honestly have become a bit pragmatic, and half expect more vitriol in response. But I suppose that's what may happen when people's pride gets involved (especially when it's involved with something that it (their pride) needn't and shouldn't have been involved in). - jc37 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:Although I agree with most of what you're saying I disagree with "that you can get someone of what you presume is a contrary bias to proofread your work seem to be begging the question of good faith to me". There are many topics where a particular POV not only means that you (inadvertently) read certain things into sources that aren't there, it also means you may be unaware of sources that contradict your POV. There have been several times when I've sought out those with POVs different from mine in an attempt to make sure that I am being neutral. This is almost the very definition of WP:AGF as I'm assuming good faith of those with differing POVs. (For example, while editing the Beatitudes article, I sought out a Christian to make sure I wasn't offending anyone.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --RucasHost 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am one who identified the Brights Movement as a religion. It all depends on one's definition of religion. If Pantheism and Buddhism are religions, then the Brights movement is a religion. If you think a religion must incorporate a personal deity that can be worshiped and prayed to, then it is not. If you think religion is how a person relates to ultimate reality, how one decides what is true and establishes one's ethics and values, then it is. To me it is a religion and it is one I agree with and identify with. I can not understand why any user category should be deleted. Maybe if we are limited in the bytes of information which can be stored. I do not understand why political categories were deleted. I would like to know who is Green. What does it harm? Mike Nassau 19:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete :Category:Bright Wikipedians (the redirect) per WP:BEANS; oppose renaming :Category:Wikipedian Brights to "interested in -ism" per nom (identification does not necessarily translate to interest); no opinion on keep/delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. This category benefits Wikipedia by fostering collaboration and discussion. No good reason to delete or rename. --S.dedalus 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:There certainly seems to be no consensus to delete. -- Evertype·✆ 09:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep :Category:Wikipedian Brights (see my previous comments) and Delete :Category:Bright Wikipedians. I see no benefit in this latter category which appears to be empty. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Regarding the proposal for deletion: The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view. In what way is this different from The Christian movement is a social movement that aims to promote public belief and acknowledgment of a theistic world view.? -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Well, for one thing, I think you may be misdefining Christians. But that aside, I can understand the suggestion that this be recatted to :Category:Wikipedian by religion. There are some arguements both for and against that above. However, that doesn't deal with the fact that it's still essentially a single-article category (Bright movement and two founders, one of which redirects back to Bright movement.) And the fact that the "movement" is an internet website-based phenomenon. (Precedents already stated above.) - jc37 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

::*This category is already in :Category:Wikipedians by religion. Since this category (specifically) is being discussed (albeit as part of a larger discussion) a simple edit to remove :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy is not an appropriate edit, although I am sorely tempted to do so. Would removing it from the philosophy category satisfy you, jc37? (I ask you because you are the nominee and appear to be the "point man" on the issue.) Horologium t-c 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Well, it wouldn't actually deal with the nomination, just with the related fact that all the "by philosophy" cats were nominated, and this was one (though I haven't yet renommed several due to confusion last time). Note my comments immediately above yours, for a few other issues. Now, as I look through this discussion, I think this is floating somewhere between no consensus and delete (nearest to delete), though if you'd asked me a few days ago, I'd have suggested that it was a solid delete. (A few Wikipedians have recently started to address the questions of the nomination, though the best examples of collaboration are still potential collaboration. And that to only one, maybe two, articles.) However, I think it's fair to say that considering past examples of "vote counting", if this is closed as "delete", it'll likely go before DRV. And we'll have yet another round of this. The honest answer to your question, Horologium, is that it has nothing to do with "satisfying me". But, attempting to answer what I'm guessing is your intent: I won't oppose a close of no consensus, based primarily on recatting solely to Wikipedians by religion. Noting that of course such a result doesn't preclude renomination, either individually, or as a group nom in the future. It doesn't address the majority of my concerns, and I'm leaning towards it being a bad idea to push for a close based on continued disruption, per WP:BEANS... However, as I say, I likely wouldn't oppose such a closure, for just those reasons. - jc37 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::::*Okay, I went ahead and removed it :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy from the category page (separating it from the parent cat), so a "keep" or "no consensus" result will remove this category from the philosophy section. A "delete" result will also remove it from the philosophy cat. (small smile) Horologium t-c 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::*And it was reverted back by Evertype. I'm not going to edit war over this; it can be hashed out at DRV. Horologium t-c 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::*And Evertype, please stop dragging Christianity (your all-purpose bogeyman) into this discussion; it has been explained to you several times why this category (and not the Christian category, or any of the numerous other theistic religion categories besides Christianity) was tagged for discussion. Horologium t-c 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Really, I have only mentioned Christianity twice. The first time to say that :Category:Christian Wikipedians was just as much self-identification as :Category:Wikipedian Brights. The second time, here was to suggest that Christianity as a "social movement" is not really very different from the Brights as a "social movement". I think this hardly qualifies as a sign that I consider Christianity "my all-purpose bogeyman". You may have confused my two equivalence arguments with other comments made by others above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete category with unclear name (the Bright redirect) and the category to which it redirects. The so-called movement's definition is not really defining/distinguishing. Doczilla 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians - "Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death." - Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism, and recat. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename, those who so self-categorize are likely to have an interest in, and knowledge of, the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per jc37. Users in this category are more able to collaborate on the development and maintenance of articles related to transhumanism (133, not counting overlaps!). I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as transhuman and those who are interested in transhumanism without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom- broad cultural movement cats aren't necessary. Lurker (said · done) 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to "interested in". Again, Tranhumanism, as a philosophy, is much more narrow and clearly defined (but no less ridiculous) than "new age". The reason listed in the proposal is quite a stretch. What is the purpose of deleting all these categories? If there is even a remote chance that they could be helpful to someone, then there should be a compelling reason to delete them. "It's just like 'new age'" is not a compelling reason (especially since it is not an apt comparison). Are we trying to save space on the servers? — DIEGO ^talk 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename Looks like this is fairly widely used. If this gets deleted, though, this guy probably won't be happy. :P GlassCobra 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Actually, he is not a member of the category, although he has a related userbox on his page. Horologium t-c 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism (lowercase 'T') per nom and Bigwyrm. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Oops, sorry I missed that (again). - jc37 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Again this category benefits Wikipedia by fostering collaboration and discussion. No good reason to delete or rename. The category is narrow enough to be useful. It has nothing to do with New Age, which is quite different. --S.dedalus 23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Surrealist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Surrealist Wikipedians - Surrealism - art movement. Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown here.- jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism, and recat. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename - it's hard to conceive of someone describing themselves as a "surrealist" without having some (potentially useful) knowledge of surrealism. bd2412 T 07:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Fish~~ Delete As with previous broad philosophical movement cats. Lurker (said · done) 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename. Although I think the new age precedent is much more applicable in this case, so I wouldn't object to deletion. But why bother deleting it? It's not hurting anyone. — DIEGO ^talk 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of this category would not prevent the creation of an "interested in..." category. There is no value in renaming merely for the sake of preserving categorisation; indeed, it may be actively misleading by producing inaccurate categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and Rename per jc37. The subject of surrealism is not so broad as to defy collaboration. Also, the broader category will foster such collaboration, as it will include both those users who identify as surrealist and those who are interested in the subject without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
An "interest" category ideally would not include people who merely identify as surrealist. Straightforward deletion and natural repopulation of an 'interest' category would result in a more accurate category and, thus, would be more useful for collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and Rename as per Bigwyrm. An interest in surrealism is surely not objectionable, nor is it susceptible to lead to disruption of discussion. Jasy jatere 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
While it isn't objectionable or disruptive, these are not the reasons for deletion. Also, this category does not convey an "interest in surrealism" but a mere affiliation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and allow the "interested in..." category to be created and populated naturally: not everyone who is a surrealist is necessarily interested in surrealism. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with you on that point. Intelligently identifying with an ideology inherently implies interest in that ideology. Those few who identify with any particular ideology, but have no interest in that ideology, have a level of confusion that will not prevent them from adding themselves to the "...interested in..." category anyway. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine ... As I think I've said previously, I think your argument has merit when the scope of the subject is narrow and clearly defined (e.g. in the discussions for 'structural realism' and 'Bayesian probability', I supported renaming). I do not think that is the case with surrealism ... but, anyway, the point is relevant only if one subscribes to my assumption about narrow definition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Rename is the best option. The name as is makes it seem like the 'pedians are works of surrealism. —Scouter Sig 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Marxist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Marxist Wikipedians - a political ideology. The political ideology cats were deleted, as shown here. Note that one of those deleted was "Marxian Wikipedians". - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and precedent. This is a political ideology category and essentially a copy of the misnamed Category:Marxian Wikipedians, which was previously deleted. The concerns remain the same as before: this type of category has the potential to be divisive, may assist POV-pushers (by providing a grouping of editors of a certain viewpoint), and serves primarily as a userpage notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per previous discussions on political cats. Lurker (said · done) 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This should have already been deleted in the political ideologies purge. It shouldn't escape simply because it is classified as a "philosophy". — DIEGO ^talk 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per precedent & nom... SkierRMH 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Itis as much a philosophical and academic as a political category at this point. It does not actual harm, and hypotheses about being divisive are just hypotheses. Anything at WP has the potential to be divisive--let's deal with just the actual problems if they arise. DGG (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per precedent.—Scouter Sig 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Feminist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Feminist Wikipedians - a political ideology. The political ideology cats were deleted, as shown here. And for WP:ALLORNOTHING fans out there: As "Masculist Wikipedians" was deleted, so too should "Feminist Wikipedians".. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, political ideologies have no place in the user categories. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per previous discussion on political ideology cats. Lurker (said · done) 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and precedents. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. per nom (it's a political ideology). — DIEGO ^talk 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
delete per precedent on political ideologies. SkierRMH 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, user cats are intended to help us write an encyclopedia. Marlith ^T/C 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Bayesian Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:Rename :Category:Bayesian Wikipedians to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian methods per Bayesian - Statistical/probability theories and methods. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian probability ~~:Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian statistics, to match the title of :Category:Bayesian statistics~~. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In reading over the pages linked on Bayesian, this appears to be about more than statistics. - jc37 09:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"probability" would (probably) be better. Alai 18:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right: :Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian probability is a more encompassing title, inclusive of both the general philosophy and the specific methods. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Trystero Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Trystero Wikipedians - See The Crying of Lot 49. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, it's difficult to imagine a use for this category when it is populated by a userbox that reads "This user believes Wikipedia Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, too much of an inside joke. Was it really necessary to renominate this? It seemed to be uncontroversially headed for deletion in the original discussion. bd2412 T 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What the hell is this? — DIEGO ^talk 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, though if it fails, I just may add the category myself, since I just read it. Haha, yes Diego: it's basically an inside joke, like BD says. —Scouter Sig 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as too esoteric, 'inside', and they'll be waiting too long a time... hmm, maybe a category for 'Wikipedians waiting for Godot' ;} —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians - The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)#Reception_and_fandom - I suppose it's comparable to being a Trekkie/Trekker who reveres James T. Kirk. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Merge to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (convention of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television). - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If no consensus to delete, merge to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Too narrow to be useful. bd2412 T 07:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. But could someone please start a "Kirkian Wikipedians" category? — DIEGO ^talk 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 22 =

==[[:Category:Wikipedians by video game]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. I am most swayed to delete by the arguments by ^demon, WaltCip and ScouterSig. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians by video game}}

::And all subcategories. ~~In process of tagging.~~ All tagged. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:Playing a particular video game does not foster contribution and is only helpful for social networking. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep We have articles on video games, so it helps to have a place to find people who know about them.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:31, 10/22/2007
Delete all. Verifiability, not truth. Knowing how to play a game has nothing to do with citing sources. --Kbdank71 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. On the contrary, being interested enough to include a game on your user page indicates that you might have a better idea where to find resources on that topic than most other editors. Krychek 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"Might" being the operative word there. Of the ten people in :Category:Wikipedians who play Halo, 60% of them have made no Halo-related edits in their last 500. A good amount of the remaining 40% were vandalism reverting, which anyone can do. --Kbdank71 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to wonder, have you performed the same analysis on other categories? If that is your criterion, I imagine most categories would disappear. I've never touched articles on many of my own areas of expertise, but I would probably contribute if asked. Krychek 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I imagine they would. Let me ask you a few questions: if you've never touched articles in your areas of expertise, why do you have the categories on your user page? You got a request to help at the origami portal, did you contribute to that? --Kbdank71 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to a similar analysis being carried out on {{cl|User de-1}}, {{cl|User en-5}}, and the like. Alai 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Even if it allows readers to find editors knowledgeable on various games, how much of Wikipedia's internals is exposed enough to let readers find userpages in the first place? Shadow1 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
None, if we delete the categories that are made to help us find them... And it allows editors to find knowledgeable people in order to write better articles, not readers to find people to ask questions to.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:53, 10/22/2007
Delete - Nobody's going to join this category just because they can help other editors collaborate on them. That's what Wikiprojects are for.--WaltCip 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What are user categories for then?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:06, 10/22/2007
My position is that user categories should just be deleted and overhauled altogether, but that's another story.--WaltCip 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I figured. But I think discussions for individual categories should go under the assumption that user categories in general are warranted for the purpose of collaboration. So, for the specific purpose of collaborating on video game articles, this category should stay -- and the assumption that no one will join it in order to collaborate is unfounded.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:41, 10/22/2007
Strong Keep :Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive video games and :Category:Wikipedians by video game console. Weak keep the individual game subcats. Several of these have multiple articles. I would support deletion of the single-article video games, however. Would you be interested in splitting the nom? - jc37 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Per nominator, who said they are only helpful for social networking. As we know, WP isn't for social networking. I further feel these cats don't offer anything constructive to the editing of an encyclopedia, giving that a lot of video games already have their own articles. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep As noted before, if the same criteria were applied everywhere, most categories would disappear. Besides, what's the harm in letting people organize themselves by what video games they play?-Link 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also as noted before, being harmless does not preclude a category from being useless and these cats are certainly useless. Further, in case you haven't noticed, most categories ~~are~~ do have the illusion of disappearing. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the last part is not quite accurate. Nearly half of user categories are language categories (i.e. those starting with Category:User) and a deletion nomination of those is sure to fail (in fact, I think one was snowball-kept a few months ago). In addition to those, there are approximately another two thousand user categories which I don't think anyone has any intention of nominating. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A strong group of categories which enables collaboration by subject.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge and rename to :Category:Wikipedians who play video games. I may even think that :Category:Wikipedians by game system (ie. Gamecube, NES, PS2, etc) could be useful, but this many sub categories fractures members into tiny categories which hinder rather than help community. If you like a specific game that much, a note on your page and/or a userbox would be fine. User cats are unnecessary. —Scouter Sig 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yet another social networking category. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MYSPACE Marlith ^T/C 04:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Connecting fans with a shared interest can be useful for collaboration. Doczilla 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge and rename I agree with Scouter. Martin B 14:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

==[[:Category:Users Who Are Anti-High School Musical]]==

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per precedent of anti-XXX categories and userboxes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Users Who Are Anti-High School Musical}}

:Delete, somehow I don't see why we need a category for this. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

==[[:Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Chatham House Grammar School]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians by alma mater:Chatham House Grammar School}}

:Delete, Is grammar school more important than high school? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::This particular grammar school was attended by a prime minister of Great Britain - it was at one time the largest grammar school in England and it's been around since the 1750's - it's pretty notable. SteveBaker 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Notability of the school isn't in question. In any event, the equivalent category for King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford) - an even older grammar school - was deleted as a result of the previous discussion. No reason has yet been given why this school should be the exception. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per previous discussion Lurker (said · done) 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete especially given unanimous support for deletion of the high school "alma mater" categories. Not that it's a vote, but there weren't any editors voicing an opinion for keeping them. This one should be even clearer. Kestenbaum 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep We have an article on Chatham House Grammar School, and people who go/went there may want to collaborate with others who went there in order to improve it, or to create related articles. This is why we have user categories to begin with. I don't see what makes this one so different; aside from it being small, but that's irrelevant.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:33, 10/23/2007
Delete per precedent as cited by ProveIt, which included deletion of at least one similar grammar school category (Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford)). As was said in the last discussion, those who go/went there and who want to collaborate about the school can do so using the talk page of the school's article if necessary. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
They might not all necessarily know that the article exists. People add themselves to categories based on which ones apply to them, not with the editing of a specific article in mind. If someone decides to contribute to this article and no one who went to the school is participating in that article yet, the contributor has no way of finding these people. This is exactly what user categories are for. \
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:53, 10/23/2007
I'd be very surprised if potential editors didn't know that the article about the school existed, but could still find this category. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Equazacion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Equazacion. User categories are harmless to the main encyclopedia - if it helps editors to collaborate - it's a small price to pay. SteveBaker 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per numerous precedents. Collaboration for the ONE related article can be accomplished on the school's talk page. Horologium t-c 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
See my previous answer to ProveIt's identical statement.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:54, 10/24/2007
Delete per numerous precedents and Bencherlite. The "harmless" argument isn't particularly convincing. First, being harmless does not preclude a category from being useless. Second, contributing to category clutter, which reduces navigability, is harmful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Collaboration can occur on the article's talk page, If categories were allowed for collaborating on a single article, that would set precedent to allow 2,062,523 categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Bronze Award ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete Bronze and Silver, keep Gold. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Bronze Award}}

:Note: This nomination also includes :Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Gold Award and :Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Silver Award

Categorisation on the basis of receiving an award does not foster collaboration and is not viable. Retention would set a precedent for every award by every group/organisation. If there is some value in preserving the implied affiliation to the GSA, then merge/rename all to :Category:Wikipedians in the Girl Scouts of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 00:28, October 22, 2007

Delete all as nom and per precedent (see here, here, here, here, here and here). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Gold cat, Delete Bronze and Silverl. Gold Award is the highest in Girl Scouting and should be kept. It's a very notable achievement. Rlevse 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I won't dispute your assertion since I don't really know much about the Girl Scouts of America, but what is the purpose of categorising on that basis? Why does the userbox or a userpage notice not suffice to convey this information? I would appreciate any clarification you could provide. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. We don't currently have a similar category for biographical articles; even if we did, it would likely be deleted per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners.
Well, I guess the same purpose as something like :Category:People from Grand Rapids, Michigan. I don't see that as important as a US Presidents category either. Rlevse 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to rephrase my question. :Category:People from Grand Rapids, Michigan is for articles, whereas the nominated categories are for userpages. The purpose of regular categories is to group articles on the basis of characteristics that define the subject (such as year of birth/death); the purpose of user categories is to group users on the basis of characteristics that foster encyclopedic collaboration (such as ability to translate a language). The question I was getting at (and I apologise for the ambiguity in my comment) is: how does a grouping of users who've received the Girl Scouts Gold Award foster encyclopedic collaboration? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Equazcion says it better than I could have below.Rlevse 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
keep gold cat per Rlevse, roughly equivalent to :Category:Eagle Scout Wikipedians and represents a great deal of hard work, viable and not divisive. Chris 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute any of your points, but what value does the category hold above and beyond the userbox? How does it help to foster encyclopedic collaboration? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course.Rlevse 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom --evrik ^(talk) 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Hate to bring this up again, but this has about as much use as :Category:Wikipedian guitarists, only more so -- if you want to find someone who knows about girls scouts, for article info or what have you, who better to turn to than a gold award winner? Heck, that's like having an "expert guitarists" category where you can find the best musicians to record samples. In all seriousness, if other user categories are useful for finding people who know about a particular field, then this is useful for that reason too -- and then some, since it also denotes a level of knowledge/experience, not just an interest. If you delete this for not being useful as a collaborative tool then I say delete all user categories, 'cause if this ain't useful, none of 'em are.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:52, 10/22/2007
Then how about merging and renaming all of the categories into :Category:Wikipedians in the Girl Scouts of America, to match :Category:Wikipedians in the Boy Scouts of America? After all, if it is the affiliation with the organisation that is useful, the category name should reflect that. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As I already said, that award denotes that the bearer is a better bet for good information than just any average member. It's useful to have the most reliable people in a separate category. You know those article tags that request the attention of an expert in the field? Well, here's how you find your girl scouts expert, should you ever need one.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:04, 10/22/2007

Keep per EquazcionSumoeagle179 10:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think that these awards are different than Wikipedian awards (the deletion of which are in some of the examples of precedent above). That said, if we don't categorise people in articles by award, we probably have no need to categorise Wikipedians by them either. (See WP:OCAT#Award winners.) However, as per that guideline, these may be notable enough for categorisation. (And potentially useful for collaboration, as award winners may be more knowledgable about related topics.) So I'm staying Neutral, for now. - jc37 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep the gold cat per Rlevse comment above. Also, no harm in keeping them all. R. Baley 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete bronze and silver, no opinion on gold for now. VegaDark (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Gold Award category. 5 of the 6 examples BlackFalcon brought up are categories for in-Wikipedia awards (though I'm sure anyone could find more examples of categories of awards outside of Wikipedia). A Gold Award category serves a community-building process by noting that these Wikipedians can serve as valuable resources, more so than a broader "GSUSA Wikipedian" category: which may also be useful, because there are Girl Scouts who do not have the Gold Award who could be resources. By noting the knowledge and interest, the category inherently is similar to :Category:Wikipedians by interest and :Category:Wikipedians by organization, both of which are huge categories with many sub-cats. —Scouter Sig 12:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 21 =

== Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} upmerge for now. No prejudice against nomination of :Category:Former Wikipedians. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia}}

:Delete, Exactly the opposite of useful for collaboration. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge to :Category:Former Wikipedians per evrik. ~~Delete~~. This is something that is useful to know for a specific editor, but the userpage notice suffices for that; I can think of no reason to browse through a category of retired editors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Utterly harmless; could be useful - if I happen to glance in there and see that someone I know to have covered a certain area has retired, I might keep a closer eye on their contributions. This may occur even if I was not actively looking at userpages for retirement notices. This is almost the same as looking at what is transcluded from the template, except there are bound to be false positives for the template arising from discussion of same. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would the template's whatlinkshere provide false positives? All transclusions are clearly marked and, unless there was some sort of bug, would also be categorised. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What if it's subst'ed? bd2412 T 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I suppose 'human error' (substing a template that shouldn't be substed), for lack of a better term, could yield a discrepancy. However, when we are at this level of detail, we're discussing not just a casual "glance" but a fairly thorough investigation. Rather than happening upon this category, recognising a username, and taking up an abandoned task, isn't it far more likely that one would notice that a certain area was become backlogged or that a certain editor had stopped contributing, with the discovery of the 'retired' status coming via the userpage rather than a category? A category is really only useful when it is plausible that someone might deliberately browse through it ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18#Category:Wikipedians by active status.2C_Category:Wikipedians_who_are_not_currently active and Category:Wikipedians who are partially active. --evrik ^(talk) 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Commnt maybe merge the category with: :Category:Former Wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I was waiting to nominate this until after the closure of the DRV noted above. I'll wait until then to also nominate Former Wikipedians, as well. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think it should be merged regardless. The distinction between "former" and "retired" is not clear enough to merit separate categories. Categorising on the basis of difference in status (active/inactive) is one thing, but categorising on the basis of which userbox an editor happens to use is altogether different. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete both, but failing that, merge. As I said in the DRV noted above, this category is populated by a userbox, so instead of telling the world you've left twice on the same page (userbox and cat), you're only saying it once. Certainly doesn't help with collaboration. --Kbdank71 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If someone 'retires,' they will probably note it with something prominent on the top of their userpage--why would they hide it at the end? —Scouter Sig 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Boxer owners ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Boxer owners}}

:Delete, see discussion of Wikipedians by pet. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per precedent. The userbox is sufficient to express the affiliation; a category is not needed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per precedent. Similar to the other lifestyle cats. (Boxer cats... Oh, no puns there : ) - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 20 =

== Wikipedians by philosophy and subcats==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Closed to be relisted - These "discussions" are becoming the very definition of "disruption". They've devolved into philosophical debate on the relevance of User categories in general, rather than the merely the subcats of :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. There has been extensive canvassing (the extent of which may have been inappropriate (see Wikipedia:Canvassing.) There have been personal attacks, both here and elsewhere. And just in general this has devolved into a state of Un-Wiki-like actions. Also, due to precedent of such discussions, Since the majority of the comments which actually address the nom have been rename or delete, in absense of actual opposition, the discussions will like be closed that way, rather likely leading to a DRV, and the portential for further disruption. Therefore, I'm closing this, and we can start over as the CIVIL Wikipedians that I know we can be. I will also endeavor to write clearer nomination rationales, which perhaps will aid in the discussion. (As such, please give me some time today to write them.) - jc37 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Category:Wikipedians by philosophy - The majority of these are either related to a single article, or are too broad for inclusion, or both. A few exceptions are those which are fields of study (including religious study), which should be renamed to reflect this. While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an enormous amount of overlap between this category and many of its sub-categories whcih you've nominated individually below. Are you just proposing in this instance to eliminate the meta-category and leave the sub-categories (if they are kept) floating individually? If not, what do you propose to do if this nomination passes while nominations for individual subcategories fail (or vice versa). bd2412 T 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:I'm proposing deleting this category, and either deleting several which are not more than just a single-article-based-belief/philosophy, with a too-broad statement of self-identification; and/or renaming those which are a part of philosophical study (several of which follow a written code of morality/ethics). But as a category, and as a grouping, these are just a bad idea. a philosophy could be religious, artistic, mathematic, scientific, political, etc.
:And what's the "cut-off" line for including every possible belief that a person may have?
:At the moment, the current ongoing consensus seems to be that self-identification categories should be removed. (Both LGBT Wikipedians and Furry Wikipedians closures have now been upheld at DRV.) And categories which only propose possible collaboration to a single article should also be removed, as someone who may be interested in that article is likely already editing it (or not, as is their choice).
:So the nominations are based on those two conventions as criteria.
:The groupings below were just to try to group together similar things, rather than just have one large nomination of "delete all". I feel that this will give ample opportunity for those with thoughts and concerns to voice them. (So, for example, if someone may see a reason to delete one group, but rename another, or whatever.)
:I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:: These objections about the scope and delineation of membership in categories misses one crucial distinction between user categories and other types--membership is based on our own self-understanding. We put ourselves in these categories. We are both subject and object in these cases. We decide where it is appropriate to 'cut off'. The dilemma is a false. Also, would you explain why it is a problem that a philosophy may refer to more than one specific domain of knowledge. You state that this is a "bad idea" without providing an explanation as to why it is such. DionysosProteus 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Categories should be specific in usage, else they are less effective, to possibly becoming useless. As for the rest, "these categories" are renamed, merged, or deleted on a regular basis. As are articles, templates, and so on. If you have concerns with the process, you're welcome to take it to an appropriate discussion page, but atm, you're not addressing this specific nomination. - jc37 13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: That is a response to your raising of the specific objection about the cut-off for categorizing a person's belief. That it also has more general applicability is besides the point. Would you kindly answer the question and explain the reasoning behind your claim that it is a "bad idea", unless the claim about specificy was meant to be that? What is non-specific about "Marxist"? That a philosophy may be applied in numerous disciplines in no way implies a lack of specificy about the intellectual approach. Are you saying that you'd prefer another level of sub-categories? (Marxist economists, Marxist artists, etc.) Wikipedia articles are very often interdisciplinary in nature; it is not unreasonable for user cateogries to reflect that. Atomisation is not an argument. DionysosProteus 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I did answer the question: "Categories should be specific in usage, else they are less effective, to possibly becoming useless.". That aside, I think I mentioned somewhere that this meta-discussion should be discussed on a talk page somewhere else. If this continues, I'll be moving such comments to a talk page, where everyone will be welcome to discuss Wikipedian categories in general, as well as the deletion process on Wikipedia. However this thread is not the appropriate place for that discussion. - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::: You have failed to recognise that I am addressing the specifics of the way in which a wikipedian's belief system impacts on editing practices. Threatening to remove a discussion because you have failed to follow the reasoning is inappropriate. You have also failed to explain in what way a category such as "Marxist Wikipedians" is in any way non-specific, which, you have explained, was what you meant by a "bad idea". You are proposing to delete the by philosophy categories without providing a sufficient explanation of why you consider them "non-specific". DionysosProteus 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep same reason as above. I dislike the idea that a few people who think these harmful are trying to impose their view on the large group of WPedians who use these categories and think otherwise. It would be fair to notify them individually and hear what they think--perhaps they will say they don't really want or need it and didn't realize it was different from userboxes. I do not use these categories, but I let other WPedians deal with things like this their own way. If it can not be shown to be actually harming the encyclopedia, I would leave such categories alone. I would want for each individual category evidence that it a/is being used primarily for extensive social networking or b/ is being used for the formation of a cabal or an attempt at POV-pushing.
In this particular case, any evidence that those in the philosophy categories are using the categories for social purposes? or to unfairly influence articles? Why use this process to eliminate the innocuous? DGG (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:"I dislike the idea that a few people who think these harmful are trying to impose their view on the large group of WPedians who use these categories and think otherwise." - This has been discussed a lot in the past, but to summarise: typically user membership is due to placing a userbox. The categorisation is often for "feel good" reasons, and has nothing to do with collaboration. (A case in point is a situation we had with the zodiac cats in the past.) And these are not just a few individual editors. These same discussions have had very few of the same members. This is just like any XfD discussion. The categories are tagged. If someone wishes to show interest, they will.
: So I'm not sure that it's constructive or helpful here to make comments in a discussion claiming that your comments are based on not liking the process, the forum for the process, or how the process is currently turning out, rather than on the specific category or categories under discussion. ~~And that goes for all the copy-pasted duplicates of the above comments on down the page.~~ (comments were merged) - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:: There is some faulty reasoning in the comment above: "The categories are tagged. If someone wishes to show interest, they will." This presumes that each user that has placed themselves in a category also has that category on their watch list and are aware of the tagging. That is not a reasonable assumption to make. DionysosProteus 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It's the process of deletion discussions on Wikipedia. If yo uhave issues with that process, feel free to start a discussion on a talk page somewhere. As noted above, this thread is not the appropriate place for it. - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: You misrepresent my comment. It was the faulty reasoning behind your assumptions about how other wikipedians relate to that process, not the process itself, that I critised. Just because something is up for deletion and those in the category do not take part in the discussion of its deletion, in no way implies that they are consenting to the process nor are not interested in it. You cannot make that assumption. It is your assumption that is at fault, not the process. DionysosProteus 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete for the same reasons as this UCFD discussion and this DRV discussion. Apparently, all of those and this cat have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site, and no one cares what you are or who you support just how you edit. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Comment: You do realize that this is a user category, right? What does user "notability" have to do with anything?!? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
KEEP Most modern critical theory in the humanities recognizes that how one writes is partly determined by the views one holds; a great deal of scholarly criticism makes a point of detailing their author's approach. The same applies to the writing and choices for inclusion or exclusion of material made by editors. These are categories that categorize Wikipedians, so the notability criterion by definition does not apply (if it did, the vast majority of editors in all wikipedian categories would have to be removed). The categories to which I belong relate neither to a single article alone nor are too broad to be meaningful. These categories are a useful way of understanding from where a line taken by an editor is coming; just as it is useful to understand an editor's nationality, or many of the other categories. The suggestion that anyone is attempting to use these categories for the purposes of social networking strikes me as both presumptuous and faintly ridiculous; why on earth would anyone use this when there are plenty of far better forums designed for it? Note also: if the philosophy categories are removed, the religion ones ought to be removed as well. DionysosProteus 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:Well, for all the things you want this for ("These categories are a useful way of understanding from where a line taken by an editor is coming;"), a userpage notice - such as a userbox - should be enough. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::But it doesn't provide the same easy access to other editors with the same point of view. (The Fun Destroyers strike again...) Thanos6 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Looking for editors "with the same point of view", is helpful how? - jc37 10:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::::To discuss the writing of an article, or if the editor has a view opposed to yours, to perhaps amicably settle a dispute that has spilled beyond a talk page's confines. Thanos6 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::So, Canvassing? Depending on the intent, probably not a good idea either. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::That not what Thanos6 said. I will assume in good faith that you did not misread that on purpose. . . I’m sure you agree that the constructive discussion of articles of common interest is central to improving Wikipedia and settling disputes. --S.dedalus 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Why should we delete them? They are some way against encyclopedic content in wikipedia? If yes then let's delete all userboxes/categories then... --Enerccio 11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:(WP:ALLORNOTHING.) - That aside, I think you miss the rationales for these nominations. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP We have this "philosophy category" witchhunt far too often. Consensus is that Wikipedians want to be identified in this way, and that it is useful that it be possible. -- Evertype·✆ 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
OPPOSE RENAMING as well. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:*How is it useful? Does it make you feel good? I've never found a need to look for someone of that type. In fact, I've found them to be quite nasty in the past.--WaltCip 14:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

::*And yet you proudly display that you are one of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_who_play_Halo Category:Wikipedians who play Halo]. How does THAT help the encyclopedia? --S.dedalus 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*If you looked more closely, you would see that it is merely a byproduct of using User:Scepia/Halo. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

::::*That makes a difference how? I have :Category:Atheist Wikipedians on my user page as a result of User:S.dedalus/Richard Dawkins (God). My question remains. How does :Category:Wikipedians who play Halo help improve Wikipedia any more than :Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. --S.dedalus 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::*It makes a difference in that WaltCip did not add the category deliberately. In response to your question: it doesn't matter since we're not discussing :Category:Wikipedians who play Halo right now (start a separate nomination for that if you would like for the issue to be discussed). If the "Halo" category is no more useful than this category, and this category is not useful (I know you disagree with this claim), then we should simply delete both. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::*My original message was meant as a response to WaltCip's sarcastic attempted refutation. As far as I’m concerned he did intend to add the userbox to his page so he added the category purposely. --S.dedalus 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:* (Evertype) - Could you point me to that consensus discussion? And is it more recent than the recent discussions which would suggest otherwise? - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::*I do not keep records of these things. I have seen any number of these Category debates about religious and philosophical preferences of Wikipedians. They always end in No Consensus To Delete. And I object to your having removed my comments on the individual items here. That was a bad faith edit in your part. I do not believe that you are trying to make the Wikipedia a better place. These Categories are in no way burdensome to the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::* Ah, but Wikipedia keeps the records for you. And there are archives that you can comb through. I know I've read them often enough. As for some of the previous groupnominations you somewhat remember, the difference is in the reasons for the nominations. Which is something that those in these "discussions" currently seem to refuse to acknowledge. (And by the way, I entreat yo uto take some time reading through, you may find my own comments in such discussions interesting considering your accusations.) As for the merging of the comments, See User talk:Dan Pelleg for an answer I gave about that. In short, there were several editors who were not commenting on the specific nominations, but on user categories in general. I merged all the copy/paste comments to the umbrella nomination, knowing that the closer will take them into consideration when closing the subcat nominations. Merges like that happen for clarity. As for your opinion of me, feel free to follow dispute resolution, if you feel that that's what you should do, but on this page at least, please keep to the topic of the categories under discussion. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::I strongly disagree with you decision to modify user comment in this way jc37. There is a very strong consensus on Wikipedia that, except in a very few circumstances (personal attacks for instance), changing or moving user comments (and especially votes) is disruptive behavior. --S.dedalus 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::First, I'd suggest that you check out WP:TALK, which explains that "very strong consensus". Second, refactoring a discussion page for readability is fine, though not as common these days. I in no way "changed" what you (plural) said, merely reduced the unnecessary copy/pasting (including my own). You might also note that comments such as "witchhunt" could have caused whole comments to be removed (per that same guideline). - jc37 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - We need to overhaul this cluttered, non-beneficial category system, because it is not serving the original purpose that it was intended for; collaboration, not this silly "identification" tomfoolery. Best we start here.--WaltCip 14:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
: That userboxes and wikiprojects have some elements in redundancy with the category system does not mean that the latter is redundant. To describe the difference in terms of active/passive modes is a POV description; you could equally say that categories, particularly in their intersections with one another with a particular user, enable a different and complementary means of communication. Membership in a category makes you available to others in a clear and easily-located way. Wikiprojects require a member to keep going to check its talk page for info, requests, etc. It's possible to imagine many instances where such a search would be helpful when working on articles; a shift to "interested in" categorically does not provide the same use; a Fred Phelps-fundamentalist may be "interested in" atheism or evolution, for example, which is not necessarily a useful basis for collaboration in developing the coverage of a particular perspective as part of an article. Most of the arguments offered against the categories so far lack any evidence to support their propositions--where's the evidence that they're being used for social networking? The evidence that they are useful, however, is clear! Wikipedians use them. It's true that the creator of a category may be imposing their own bizarre ideas on the project. But as soon as a great many editors make use of that category, the suggestion that they are not useful is invalidated. There evidence is there in the population of the categories. What makes those opposing think they know better than all those users in the categories how Wikipeda should be used? Patronising and authoritarian. DionysosProteus 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::In that whole answer, I didn't see how "interested in" is not more useful than self-identification. If anything you argued for "interested in", due to concerns of NPOV and bias. Also, just because several people choose to use a userbox, which also automatically categorises Wikipedians, doesn't mean that those people want/need/support/care about the categories. And further, it doesn't suggest in any way that the categories are being used for collaboration. But then, this is a "meta-discussion" about user categories in general, and not about the current nomination. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::On the contrary. Your conception of NPOV is misleading. If I perceive that an article has been rendered in exclusively idealist terms, I need a materialist to help to develop an alternative perspective, in order to achieve a more balanced account. "Interested in" in no way assists that process. You appear to imagine that NPOV is an absolute (which is itself an idealist proposition--a field of knowledge purged of all those pesky contradicitons and conflicts bequeathed by the inherently conflictual nature of society). You also generalise inappropriately to form your argument. Not all memebership in categories derives from the use of a userbox. And for those that do, there is also no evidence that they do not care about the categories. Again, you want to impose your fantasy about how these categories are being used without any evidence. You are proposing to delete on the basis of your fantasies of social networking. DionysosProteus 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, I tend to prefer to Wikipedia:assume good faith of my fellow wikipedians. Your stated "need" for a materialist to oppose an idealist, clearly does not show such preference. You also may wish to read over WP:NPOV (a core policy). In another place/forum I might have enjoyed a positive debate about philosophy such as you propose above, but this isn't the place for it. - jc37 13:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::: Your repeated attempts to suggest that the arguments that oppose your reasoning belong elsewhere is not a reasonable engagement with the debate. In reviewing WP:NPOV once more, I notice immediately "representing fairly and without bias all significant views"; modern scholarship teaches us that we all hold assumptions and perspectives of which we are to a greater or lesser degree aware or not; this means that such a broad representation may only be achieved collectively. This has absolutely nothing to do with a personal psychological preference about good faith. It refers to a collective process to achieve a balanced coverage of the significant views. Part of that process may involve searching for people who approach a particular field of knowledge from a particular philosophical perspective when we see that a particular article does not achieve the giddy height of WP:NPOV. Userboxes and Wikiprojects do not serve an identical purpose, and I have yet to read of any evidence that the categories are being used for the purposes of social networking. DionysosProteus 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, since I don't recall ever making the claim about "social networking", you may wish to rephrase your accusation. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::: You might want to consult the meaning of the word "accusation". Rather than making claims about non-existent accusations, perhaps you might answer the point? DionysosProteus 12:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep all. These Categories helps foster collaboration between editors. Absolutely no reason to delete these core categories. --S.dedalus 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Please show some examples to support this? - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the burden of proof rests with you since you are voting for deletion. However, to state the obvious, these categories allow editors to find other users with similar interests for the purpose of constructive collaboration.--S.dedalus 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You're asking jc37 to prove the non-existence of something, which is a [http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm logical fallacy] except in limited situations (involving specific constraints and narrow and unambiguous definitions, coupled with various ontological and epistemological assumptions). In practice, the burden of evidence lies with those who seek to justify the retention of content (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, for instance). Finally, these are not 'interest' categories (see :Category:Wikipedians by interest). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that the categories are functioning in the way that those who wish to delete them claim they are functioning. The evidence of their usefulness is apparent; wikipedians use them; the evidence that they are useful for collaboration is that you have so many editors here saying that this is why they have placed themselves in a category, to make themselves available for such a process. And you are misrepresenting S.dedalus's use of "interested in"; philosophy and interest are not identical, but neither are they exclusive. Verifiability clearly does not apply, just as notability does not. DionysosProteus 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I assume you refer to the “proving non-existence” fallacy? You can call it that; I just want a straight answer. jc37 says at the top “While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't.” Isn’t that just begging the question (another one from your handy list). Why? Why are categories not useful while user boxes are? This doesn’t stand up to reason. If it is useful to know that a given user is interested (I am neutral on whether these categories should be renamed) in whatever, then why is not informative to know what other Wikipedians might be inclined to collaborate on new pages etc? This category satisfies not a single one of Wikipedia’s categories for deletion guidelines as far as I can see. In nominating for deletion one must then claim Ignore all rules. In that case the burden of proof most assuredly does rest on the nominating users shoulders. --S.dedalus 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Selectively reading my comments doesn't change my reasons for the nominations. And so far, from what I'm reading all your arguments are about user categories in general, not about the specific nomination. And if you took the time to look, you may notice that I'm not proposing a removal of all Wikipedian categories. (Even merely reading the current and recently closed nominations should show that rather clearly.) As for "burden of proof" arguments, I honestly have no idea what you've been arguing with Black Falcon. You made a blanket statement, and I asked you for evidence. Since then you've chosen to not supply said evidence, but instead, what seems to me to be arguing in circles about "IWANTIT". I don't see what else there is to discuss on that point. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::: The use of "the categories" in that comment followed from the phrasing of your nomination about this specific set of categories, and points to the lack of a substantial argument or evidence to support that nomination. There was no presumption that you were calling for the removal of all categories and to suggest that there was misrepresents the argument. Rather than "I want it", the argument has been that "I find it useful, and for the following reasons...". They enable the identification and location of expertise and approaches that complement userboxes and wikiprojects, rather than being rendered redundant by the latter. They are used by a great many editors, who have made themselves available to anyone who wants to find someone that holds that philosophical position for collaboration to achieve WP:NPOV in an article. That use is not adequately covered by "interested in" (given that my interest does not indicate expertise, nor does it exclude active hostility). All of this refers to this set of nominations in particular. DionysosProteus 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would never suggest that this deletion was biased on religious bias, but I see no other reason to delete when categories like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_who_play_Halo Category:Wikipedians who play Halo] are jugged expectable. --S.dedalus 22:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Religious bias ... against whom? All of the philosophy categories have been nominated, irrespective of religious philosophy. Even those that are not directly related to religion have been nominated. In regard to :Category:Wikipedians who play Halo, lack of negative judgment (i.e. deletion) does not imply endorsement. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:: Religious bias in the sense that the Religion categories are of the same nature as Philosophy categories; while nominating one does not mean you have no intentions to nominate the other, may we be reassured that if successful, you will be nominating those for deletion next? DionysosProteus 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::That, and also in the sense of “bias from a religious point of view.” Nearly every atheistic or existential user category on Wikipedia is included in this deletion proposal. --S.dedalus 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. No grounds for deletion. Owen 22:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:The "grounds" are explained in the umbrella at the top. These individual groupings are (hopefully) for compartmentalisation of discussion. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::As has been pointed out numerous times, you have merely stated your opinion that they are unhelpful, never any actual reasons for deletion. . . --S.dedalus 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You don't have to do this, but I'm curious if you will: Take a moment and read over just this nomination thread. Find all my comments, and see if you can, from them, figure out the nomination rationale(s). And then summarise here. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I realize you weren't asking for my opinion, but it seems that you (a) describe one or more possible uses of these categories that you consider "not useful", and (b) think that the category creates clutter.
::::The clutter complaint is valid, but not an extremely strong rationale for deletion (i.e., it doesn't take much to show that the benefits outweigh this relatively low cost). As for finding possible uses that aren't useful, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether there are uses that are useful—such as collaboration. If I could describe 1,000 possible uses that aren't useful, then as long as these uses aren't harmful, they have no weight in the argument that the category isn't useful if I find one use of the category that is useful. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::::P.S.: I have yet to see an argument that couldn't be applied to every other single user category. Do you eventually plan to nominate all of them? If not, explain how these user categories differ from others. I.e., what makes other user categories useful that is not met by these user categories? Feel free to consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories for help. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. A Wikipedian's philosophical and/or religious outlook is too a significant aspect of their personality to ignore. -- Reid1967 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment Why is it important to have a category, if your concern is for the outlook/personality of specific editors? In such a case, a userbox would be just as useful. The revelation of potential bias (should editors choose to reveal it) is laudable, but does not necessitate the existence of a corrosponding category. My userpage clearly discloses several aspects of myself that I consider relevant to my editing activities, but little of that is accomplished through user categories, but rather through prose and a small collection of userboxes. The problem with many of these categories is their ties to userboxes, which are often added to userpages by the dozen, which actually reduces the utility of categorization. Horologium t-c 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::: A userbox may enable the identification in those terms of an editor with whom one is already dealing; it does not enable one to seek out such a person. That userboxes & wikiprojects have overlapping functions with categories does not mean that the former adequately fulfill all of the functions of the latter. DionysosProteus 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::::While I understand your position, it is also likely that one who intends to contribute to a particular subject can find like-minded individuals by viewing previous edits to the article, or in the case of a new article, reviewing the edit history of a related field. I can only speak from personal experience here, but I make extensive use of edit histories of articles before I undertake any sort of substantial revision, and when I have requested assistance from other editors, it is because of personal interaction I have had with them on related projects. Usually editing doesn't take place in a vacuum, and editors who are editing articles in these categories are likely to have already encountered like-minded editors elsewhere through editing and discussion of similar articles. In the case of this (parent) category, it is a catchall for a disparate group of child cats which don't have much in common; some are religious (or anti-religious), some are economics systems (Marxism), some are political cats (Structural Realism), some extol specific virtues (Cynicism) and some can arguably be grouped in multiple categories (Objectivism). Eliminating the parent cat has no effect on the child cats, about which I have not offered a position (nor, for that matter, on this one, as my comments are simply comments, not an argument for retention or deletion). Horologium t-c 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::I can speak only from my own experience; however I have used user categories similar to this one on several accessions. At least once it was in an attempt to find an editor to translate a language I didn’t know. On other accessions I have used user categories to seek help understanding specific issues related to a subject, or too look for help writing (or rewriting) an article. While it’s true that eliminating the parent category would not directly eliminate the child cats, it would set a dangerous precedent; one that could be used to justify the deletion of other similarly useful categories. This category helps people find users who are interested in specific philosophies. It’s potentially quit helpful. --S.dedalus 05:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Hmm. "By language", and "by interest" categries, neither of which are up for discussion... - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: It may be true that reviewing edit histories provides another means of locating editors that have the relevant information or experience that I might be seeking; however, a category search is quicker and will reveal a different constituency of editors. There are many cases in which that may be useful. They are complimentary methods; the categories are not in redundancy with the edit history information. As far as the parent/child argument goes, it is factually incorrect in some places (Marxism as merely an 'economic' philosophy, for one), but that is besides the point. What you miss is that they are all philosophical positions; it follows from this that they necessarily bear on different fields on knowledge to varying degrees; the category of "philosophies" has a coherence in the real world (however varied the nature of the data in its set), which may also be claimed for the category's use in Wikiworld. As far as "language" and "interest" comment is concerned, S.dedalus clealy indicates "similar to..." and, due to the non-identity of interest and position, "interest" does not render the usefulness of By Philosophy redundant. DionysosProteus 13:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Agree with other points made. Simply put, there is no legitimate reason for deletion of the categories. -- Thefreemarket 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:I suppose the easiest answer would be to suggest that "legitimate" is apparently in the eye of the beholder. But more to the point, I might susggest that you have expressed no reason to keep, legitimate or otherwise. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::As I stated above, the burden of proof is WITH YOU, since you are nominating for deletion. You have yet to show a sufficient reason for deletion. --S.dedalus 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh, I've shown exacting reasons. Read my response at the very top of this thread. While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, whether you agree or not, has nothing to do with legitimacy. - jc37 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: “While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't.” Why? You most certainly do not give a reason; just your opinion. --S.dedalus 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::S.dedalus, as I stated above, the burden of evidence lies with those calling for retention. Rather than asking for proof of non-existence, please supply proof (or at least an argument for) usefulness. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Please see my reply above.--S.dedalus 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep No point in deleting, and it is always useful to know what one considers himself to be, and others above did a good job of showing how these categories may be useful. Evertype, S.dedalus, Owen, and Thefreemarket said it all. Luis Dantas 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:A userpage notice, such as a userbox, should be enough for that. No category is necessary. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::I hope the illustrious User:DionysosProteus will forgive me for quoting him here. “A userbox may enable the identification in those terms of an editor with whom one is already dealing; it does not enable one to seek out such a person.” --S.dedalus 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::If you're already dealing with an editor, why are you having a difficult time finding them? And if you wish to seek out such a person, check an article's history, as well as "Whatlinkshere" on the userbox in question. And these are but a few easy ways. There's also the many local WikiProjects, and various noticeboards and the Village Pump. We could delete all the user categories, and Wikipedia would keep on humming along. I'm not suggesting that we do, as I think some are truly useful for collaboration, but they're in no way mandatory for Wikipedia's success. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: The category provides both functions in a simple to use and clear format: identification and location. To suggest that clicking "What links here" is as straightforward as the category is quite a stretch. Yes, of course there are other means, which you list and which have been discussed above. They do not provide the same function as categories though. That they are not essential to the survival of the project, as should be clear I think, is in no way an argument against them. You acknowledge that "some [categories] are useful for collaboration" but have not explained why these in particular are not. I understand that you attempted to do so with the "specificity" suggestion, yet they are specific designations and as philosophical approaches, by definition, do not relate merely to a single article. I asked the question above but have yet to receive a response: what, exactly, is non-specific about "Marxist"? You have plenty of people here saying "I find them useful", yet maintain an unsupported assertion that they are not useful. DionysosProteus 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep all. I think these are helpful in a variety of ways which have nothing to do with social networking. (By the "social networking" rationale, workers on Wikipedia should not have user pages at all.) For one thing, it's a quick way to learn something about the people who edit this thing -- and if a visitor to my page does not know what deism is, they can click on it and find out. I'd sooner the userbox said "is a deist" rather than "interested in deism", but better to keep them as is than delete them all. --Bluejay Young 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:As is noted in the notice at the top of this page, the userboxes are not under discussion, merely the Wikipedian categories. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing will be gained by deleting. There's generally no need for a fanatic witch-hunt on everything on user pages that isn't purely "Wikipedian". I for one do find it helpful to know facts about Wikipedians, which they are willing to share about themselves. This has nothing to do with social networking: it's completely relevant to, and useful for, the exchange of information while editing here (exactly as user language templates are). Dan Pelleg 08:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:This discussion is not about the templates (userboxes), it's about the Wikipedian categories. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::Categories are also carriers of information, just as userboxes are, and categories only concerning users are relevant the same way way that userboxes are. Dan Pelleg 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Categories are groupings of users, and shouldn't be used merely as a userpage notice. If you wish a userpage notice, add on to your userpage, don't use a category for it. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: Who says that they "shouldn't be" used in this way? That identification is one of the functions that these categories serve, and that userboxes also serve that particular function, is not an argument against a particular category. These categories also serve other functions, as the discussion above explains in some detail. Please explain where it says that the function of identification is an invalid function for user categories--I'd like to read that Wikipedia policy for myself. If it doesn't exist, then kindly amend your phrasing to indicate that you are expressing a personal preference and suggestion, not laying down the law as it stands from a project-wide policy. DionysosProteus 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Agree with collaboration, not identification. --Kbdank71 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
: No one is suggesting that we enforce identification on anyone. Are you suggesting that you disagree with others identifying themselves? In what way does that impact on your editing? DionysosProteus 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep most (except where otherwise noted) and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in <foo>" wherever possible. These categories are useful for collaboration, as they reduce the difficulty by which one might find an editor who has a clue in a particular subject area. I support renaming, especially in the case of philosophical identity, because identifying with a belief implies an interest in that belief. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:: While I agree that "identifying with a belief implies an interest in that belief", it is important to point out, I feel, that the reverse does not hold--expressing an interest in a philosophical approach does not imply that one pursues that approach; interest may indicate hostility to and a desire to root it out wherever it may sprout. Neither does interest imply a degree of expertise, whereas identifying with involves a familiarity with the basic principles at the very least. DionysosProteus 13:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I'm not at all convinced by any of the arguments for deletion. These categories are helpful. — DIEGO ^talk 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:How do you consider them helpful? - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::They are helpful because they allow editors to browse by category to find other editors with complementary interests for collaboration. The fact that many of the categories are somewhat obscure actually makes them more helpful than a userbox. I can't help but notice that you don't seem to have an issue with (Category:Christian Wikipedians), etc. How did you make the distinction which categories which categories espousing an editor's personal philosophy were worthy of keeping and which should be deleted/renamed? And please don't give me the WP:OTHERSTUFF response (it is germane to this discussion). — DIEGO ^talk 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong and Speedy Keep All: User categories are useful for collaboration, and this usefulness far outweighs the concern for "clutter". I have no idea how one could separate their use as a collaboration tool from the ability to use them as identification, or why one would even want to. What, other than the "clutter reduction" is to be gained from deleting these categories? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep All - Points for keeping have been made and the reasons written in support of deletion aren't remotely good enough. -- Crevaner 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians ===

:Rename :Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians to :Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism - "Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

Rename as nominator. - jc37 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose rename Being interested in Transhumanism does not mean that you are a Transhumanist.--Fang 23 02:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename. The broader category will include editors who can help maintain related articles, even if they do not especially identify with that ideology. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 00:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Should "transhumanism" be capitalised in the proposed name? - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:Probably not, I changed it to lower case. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Theories of knowledge ===

::Category:Empiricist Wikipedians

::Category:Rationalist Wikipedians

::Category:Existentialist Wikipedians

::Category:Humanist Wikipedians

::Category:Secular Humanist Wikipedians

::Category:Spiritual Humanist Wikipedians

::Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians

::Category:Phenomenologist Wikipedians

:Each of these concern or oppose perspectives on perception/experience/logic as a means towards knowledge. - jc37 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all different perspectives on experience is useful information that can aid in collaboration on a wide range of articles. I don';t think in practice these categories are used for unfair cabals. DGG (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:The nom has little to do with being "used for unfair cabals". Please see the longer explanation at the top. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I definitely oppose deletion. These categories are indeed very valuable if not outright needed. More than that, I actually fail to see _any_ grounds for proposing deletion. --Luis Dantas 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:The "grounds" are explained in the umbrella at the top. These individual groupings are (hopefully) for compartmentalisation of discussion. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 05:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:Whether categories in general may be useful for collaboration does not show that these specific categories are. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I see know reason why these should be any less useful than any “interested in” category.--S.dedalus 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I don't really understand the nomination and the grounds for proposed deletion seem tenuous at best. — DIEGO ^talk 08:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:The nomination is at the top under the umbrella nomination. These sub groupings are merely for convenince for those who wish to discuss specific concerns about specific categories, rather than the whole of Wikipedians by philosophy and its subcats. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Singular theory of virtue ===

::Category:Cynical Wikipedians

::Category:Morally skeptical Wikipedians

::Category:Objectivist Wikipedians

::Category:Platonist Wikipedians

::Category:Stoic Wikipedians

::Category:Epicurean Wikipedians

:- Each of these are theories based on the question of whether there is an innate or external force or ideal which causes virtue or not.

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 21:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Practitioners of a particular philosophy are more likely to be knowledgeable about (and interested in) that philosophy and its literature; these categories therefore serve to direct editors with questions relating to article content to those who are likely to be able to answer those questions. Alternatively, move them to "interested in" categories:
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Cynicism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Moral skepticism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Objectivism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Platonism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Stoicism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Epicureanism
Cheers! bd2412 T 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Renaming will then make these "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in their future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::Each of those categories is relevant to far more than a single article. Perhaps you're merely suggesting that the last word in each category should be lower case to reflect that? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep different philosophical perspectives on experience is useful information that can aid in collaboration on a wide range of articles. I don';t think in practice these categories are used for unfair cabals. The proposed change in wording is acceptable, but i think the present form is clearer. DGG (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Could you point me to those "wide range of articles"? - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose renaming, no opinion on keep/delete. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and oppose renaming . Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:As nominator, I'm proposing deletion, as these are "single-article" indentification-based categories. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Bayesian Wikipedians ===

::Category:Bayesian Wikipedians - Single-article mathematical/probability theory. - jc37 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep this is more than just an abstract mathematical theory--its a far-reaching different perspective on probability that affects world view in a significant way. Useful for finding people of a particualar perspective to help edit. DGG (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:"Of a particular perspective" - please clarify. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You could, perhaps, ask some of the users in that category. You know, the intended purpose of user categories: collaboration. Maybe prod a few of them into writing an article discussing the aforementioned perspective. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. There are plenty of articles that fall under this definition! :Category:Bayesian statistics Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as a category which holds potential to be especially useful. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Keep Suggesting this only affects a single article seems to demonstrate ignorance of the subject matter. Bayesian techniques are relevant in computer science, neuroscience, statistics, psychology, gambling, game theory, etc. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:Comment as this argument or previous ones I've made apply to virtually all user categories nominated by jc37, I'm going to mostly keep my comments to the broader super-category discussion. As my comment in that category suggests, I strongly feel that all of these categories should be kept. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Feminist Wikipedians ===

::Category:Feminist Wikipedians - another political philosophy cat. - jc37 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Feminism. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep with the present name. it's clearer. it doesnt imply hardcore opposition on POV, just a general attitude that is hardly reprehensible or disruptive.DGG (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that all the other Wikipedians by political issue categories have already been deleted. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per jc37 and oppose renaming since the mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and oppose renaming Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Dualist Wikipedians and Category:Materialist Wikipedians ===

::Category:Dualist Wikipedians

::Category:Materialist Wikipedians

:Singular oppositional beliefs which state whether man has a soul, or not. These are also broad categories which encompass most religious belief systems. - jc37 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Dualism and :Category:Wikipedians interested in Materialism ; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the topics. bd2412 T 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Renaming will then make these "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in their future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and oppose renaming. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest, especially when dealing with such broad beliefs. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose renaming, no opinion on keep/delete. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Twice? : ) - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoops ... that's what happens when I stop trying to tailor my comments to each individual nomination. :P - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Stong keep. for reasons stated abve in the umbrella discussion. — DIEGO ^talk 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Philosophical study ===

:Rename :Category:Taoist Wikipedians to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Taoism - Taoism

:Rename :Category:Kabbalist Wikipedians to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Kaballah - Kaballah

:Rename :Category:Confucian Wikipedians to :Category: Wikipedians interested in Confucianism - Confucianism

:Rename :Category:Gandhian Wikipedians to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Gandhism - Gandhism

: - These aren't religions. Each is a study of information. - jc37 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

::Also, as there are only 3 members of the Taoism and Ghandian categories, I do not oppose deletion as an alternative. - jc37 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice), but oppose rename. Identification != interest. For instance, I am a Wikipedian, but have little interest in any of the articles related to Wikipedia. I adhere to a certain ideology, but I have no interest editing articles related to that (or any other) political ideology. Whether Kaballah really is or isn't a religion, I think it's treated as one; for instance, the article states that "Kabalah refers to a set of esoteric beliefs and practices ...". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is that being an adherent means studying about it, which means you're showing interest in it. This is different than most religions in which you can be "in it" by merely saying you are. - jc37 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, given the description provided in the article, but I'm not sure whether people who add themselves to the category made or will make that distinction. Although the article does state that "Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma", it also notes that "Daojiao/Taochiao refers to Daoism as a religion". - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents.
As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see my response at the discussion for Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Changing my !vote above. I do support renaming. The broader category will include editors who can help develop and maintain related articles, even if they do not ascribe to the particular ideologies. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Would that not call for creating new categories and allowing them to populate naturally? While the broader 'interest' categories would be more useful, the people in these categories have not expressed an actual interest in the subject. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Identifying with an ideology expresses an implicit interest in that subject. It would be silly for me to claim that I am a Jimbologist, but that I know nothing about that faith and care less. Not that I am opposed to silliness, mind you, or Jimbology, for that matter. Nevertheless, I have trouble seeing your objection to the connection between identification and interest. As for creating and populating a new category, I think that would just make more work for yourself. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Black Falcon, and oppose renaming. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:Bigwyrm. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename, It helps with Wikiprojects on the subject. Marlith ^T/C 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename it's the interest that matters here, not the affiliation. And it is certainly relevant to the editing at WP. The social aspects are I think very secondary.DGG (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
and I think the plain language is clearer Wpedians interested in is a sot of weasel way to word it. For the smaller groups, by the way, all the more need to help in collaboration. DGG (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep (first choice) or rename (second choice), but do not delete. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and do not rename. No grounds for deletion, and being a Taoist isn't the same thing as being interested in Taoism. Owen 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
True, they are not the same, but the former implies the latter. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and oppose renaming This is like trying to delete the Christian Wikipedians category! These are perfectly valid, necessary categories! --S.dedalus 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (edit to add) The proposed new names would essentially create a new category definition; simply another way of deleting the old categories. --S.dedalus 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read the nomination. I'm suggesting a rename. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Actually, I don't even understand why deletion was proposed. No point to be found, I am afraid. Let the people tell what their religious interests are. Luis Dantas 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, please read the nomination. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is a really bad idea. Religious followers of Taoism and Kabbalah could be insulted by a denigration of their faith to “interested in” if this move was carried out. This would be very disrespectful. I urge you to speedily close this discussion. --S.dedalus 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:Wow. To suggest that deleting (merging/renaming/whatever) Wikipedian categories on Wikipedia is "a denigration of their faith"? Shocking. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Err. . .no you are apparently miss reading my statement. I said that RENAMING would be disrespectful since Taoists within the category would suddenly be called “people interested in Taoisam.” Despite common belief Wikipedia actually does have an effect on the real world. --S.dedalus 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave these categories alone. (Do not rename or delete). I have read the nom and still don't understand exactly what the problem is. The grounds for deleting/renaming these categories seem arbitrary and a bit absurd. — DIEGO ^talk 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Realist Wikipedians ===

::Category:Realist Wikipedians - Realism - As shown on that page, this is also waaaay too broad. - jc37 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Realism; people who so identify are likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:The "topic" of realism is so broad as to make this category useless for such an endeavor. Please check out Realism. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and oppose renaming. Realism is not a philosophy or an ideology. It is the name of several dozen related and unrelated artistic, literary, philosophical, and political theories, movements, and worldviews. This category simply cannot foster encyclopedic collaboration because it does not express a single affiliation. The label "realist" is so broad that it is impossible to know specifically what information this category is supposed to convey; therefore, it conveys to useful information. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Most of the ideologies that include the name "Realism" in their names are only related in the loosest of senses. This would not even serve as an appropriate parent category for all of them. Also, I notice that the one member of this category has already elected to found a more appropriate subcategory (which is, ironically, also up for deletion). — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that. Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in Political realism", as that seems to be the intent. See the article for details. Also, reparent under :Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, as suggested by Black Falcon in the discussion for :Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Mystic Wikipedians ===

::Category:Mystic Wikipedians - Mysticism - "The state of oneness has many names depending on the mystical system: Illumination, Union (Christianity), Irfan (Islam), Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism), Samadhi (Hinduism), to name a few." - This is waaaay too broadly inclusive. - jc37 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Mysticism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and oppose renaming (i.e. better to keep as is than to rename). This is much too broad and this very lack of specificity means that we cannot infer that identification has any relation with knowledge or interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Unlike most recent deletion proposals by Jc37, this one I sort of agree with. Mysticism is too vague and too broad a concept to be useful. Still, if someone want to call themselves as such, let them. Some rewording, or preferably subcategorizing, is probably in order, though. Luis Dantas 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of the category wouldn't actually prevent anyone from self-identifying as a mystic; it would simply remove the category from the userbox. The userbox itself would neither be deleted nor removed from any userpage. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per bd2412. There are religious systems which incorporate mysticism, but mysticism still stands on its own as an ideology. Also, unlike the Realist Wikipedians category also up for discussion, such mystic religions have mysticism as a common point of belief, and not just in name. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Marxist Wikipedians ===

::Category:Marxist Wikipedians - a political philosophy. - jc37 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - jc37 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Marxism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the philosophy. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
While I don't strongly oppose that in this case (due to this being more than a single article topic), all the political issue categories were deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see how it being a political philosophy is relevant. Owen 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
All the "Wikipedians by political issue" categories were previously deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Or doesn’t in this case. --S.dedalus 06:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the precedent for the deletion of :Category:Wikipedians by political ideology and oppose renaming. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per bd2412. I do not know how the above deletion was justified, but this one still is not. People who identify with that philosophy are more likely to be able to contribute to related articles. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 06:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. per User:S.dedalus above. — DIEGO ^talk 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Bright Wikipedians ===

::Category:Bright Wikipedians - recently turned into a redirect to:

::Category:Wikipedian Brights - Brights movement

:"The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view." - Comparable to the New age movement, the Wikipedian category of which was deleted. - jc37 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement. Those who identify as Brights are likely to have knowledge of the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Renaming will then make this a "single article interest" category, which will likely result in its future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per precedent and oppose renaming. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep unless you also intend to delete all religious categories. --Boreas 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the religious philosophical "movements" are (or were) under discussion. The New age movement (noted above) was already deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing will be gained by deleting. There's generally no need for a fanatic witch-hunt on everything on user pages that isn't purely "Wikipedian". I for one do find it helpful to know facts about Wikipedians, which they are willing to share about themselves. This has nothing to do with social networking: it's completely relevant to, and useful for, the exchange of information while editing here (exactly as user language templates are). Dan Pelleg 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per bd2412. This category may have a limited scope, but it still has value for collaboration. Also, the fact that "Brights movement" and "New age movement" both have the word "movement" in them does not imply a connection. Compare "bowel movement" and "orchestral movement". — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and oppose renaming. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and oppose renaming. per S. Dedalus. Renaming would be inappropriate. "Interested in" is a different thing from "identification as". -- Evertype·✆ 09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy ===

::Category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy

::Category:Vegan Wikipedians

::Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians

::Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal

::Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher

::Category:Pescetarian Wikipedians

::Category:Flexitarian Wikipedians

::Category:Fruitarian Wikipedians

::Category:Ovo-pesco vegetarian Wikipedians

: - These are related to the "by food" categories which are consistantly deleted. They are also userpage notices, and while a userpage notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Seems to me that we have long had the understanding that practitioners of a particular philosophy will be knowledgeable about it, and that these categories therefore serve to direct editors with questions relating to article content to those who are likely to be able to answer those questions. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
While these may be somewhat related to philosophy, they are also "lifestyle" categories, which have also been recently deleted. I think it could be questioned whether there not being much of a difference in identification (in terms of criteria for Wikipedian categorisation) between sexual preference and dietary preference. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jc37. Although a certain philosophical element may be involved, these are essentially "lifestyle" categories. The affiliations are perfectly fine when expressed as userpages notices, but there is little to be gained from categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Most of them are related to various forms of vegetarianism. And these forms are usually much more a chosen lifestyle then just a "dietary philosophy". To say it short: it's all not just about food.Alex Ex 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:Right, and the lifestyle categories have been previously deleted. - jc37 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, I didn't knew that. Alex Ex 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 06:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. These categories seem a bit narrow, but not so much as to impair their usefulness. Rather than something along the lines of "Category: Wikipedians who really dig cheesecake", these categories relate to coherent dietary and broader philosophies. Personally, I have trouble seeing exactly what their usefulness might be, but that almost certainly attests more to my own dietary values than to the actual utility of these categories. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. An example would be if there were a problem in the article about Kashrut law you might consult folks who keep kosher. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Singular theological belief ===

::Category:Agnostic Wikipedians

::Category:Antitheist Wikipedians

::Category:Apatheist Wikipedians

::Category:Atheist Wikipedians

::Category:Deist Wikipedians

::Category:Dystheist Wikipedians

::Category:Empirical agnostic Wikipedians - Weak agnosticism

::Category:Ignostic Wikipedians

::Category:Intelligent Design Wikipedians

::Category:Nihilist Wikipedians

::Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians

::Category:Pandeist Wikipedians

::Category:Pantheist Wikipedians

::Category:Theist Wikipedians

:- These are single-article theological beliefs. (Theology, in this case, is a statement of how one does or does not believe in some sort of God.) As such they are merely userpage notices, and while a userpage notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as nominator. - jc37 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Practitioners of a particular philosophy are more likely to be knowledgeable about (and interested in) that philosophy and its literature; these categories therefore serve to direct editors with questions relating to article content to those who are likely to be able to answer those questions. Alternatively, move them to "interested in" categories:
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Agnosticism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Antitheism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Apatheism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Atheism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Deism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Dystheism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in empirical agnosticism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Ignosticism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Intelligent Design
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Nihilism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Pandeism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Pantheism
::Category:Wikipedians interested in Theism
Cheers! bd2412 T 20:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Renaming will then make these "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in their future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and strongly oppose renaming. These are broad identification categories and thus should be deleted; mere identification with any one of these philosophies does not imply any sort of interest in them. For instance, most people are theists, yet most people are not interested in theism. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Theism is about the only one to which that statement applies. Most people who consider themselves apatheists or deists or nihilists have to begin with a decent philosophical background to know what those things even mean. As for DGG's suggestion that it "would be fair to notify them individually and hear what they think" - that's not only fair, but should be policy. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. One can be an atheist, nihilist, or agnostic without having any interest in editing articles related to those topics. The users in these categories have expressed a philosophical affiliation only; they have not explicitly expressed an interest in the subject. They me be interested or they may not be, but I think that we should avoid making guesses on their behalf. As for DGG's suggestion, it has been proposed numerous times in numerous contexts and in numerous variations (once by me, even) and rejected each time. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Support renaming. My Dystheism userbox actually says I'm "interested in", but it categorizes me quite inappropriately as a Dystheist. I think just about every one of these categories has boxes that indicate interest, as well as parallel ones that declare an identification. In other words, many of us are indeed in those categories because we have "explicitly expressed an interest" rather than a "philosophical affiliation" — yet both types of boxes put you into the "identifier" category, regardless. This defies logic. Everybody who identifies/affiliates with a philosophy or ideology is by definition interested in it to some degree, but not every interested person is also an identifier. Gnostrat 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than categorising both expressions of 'interest' and 'identification' into an 'interest' category, we could simply split categorisation based on the wording of the userboxes. That is, userboxes that proclaim an interest would categorise into an interest category rather than an identification category; this is the case with User:UBX/Theism3, for instance. Would you support that sort of solution? Also, identification is possible without interest. For instance, I identify quite strongly with one of the philosophies listed above, but I have absolutely no interest in editing articles related to any of them. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But are you knowledgeable about it? bd2412 T 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well ... to a certain extent ... more than the average person, probably, but I still can't write content that meets WP:V and WP:NOR without consulting sources on the subject. Even if there is some link between identification and knowledge, that would suggest that the categories should be kept at their current title, rather than renamed to 'interested in' categories. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned this point in a previous discussion, but here is a good demonstration. As someone who identifies with the above philosophy, and as someone who knows more about the subject than the average person, you have a better knowledge of the available sources relating to that subject. In any case, you set a good example by not including yourself in a category about which you do not desire to write. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Creating an 'interest' category would be an improvement on the status quo however it is done, but I can't see the problem with simply moving the identifiers into the interested cat. I don't accept that you can expressly affiliate to a position and not have an interest in it. B.F., "strong identification" is impossible without interest. What you mean is, you have an interest in the philosophy but not in editing articles about it. If you have decided that what you identify with shall not be relevant to your editing, simply don't announce it. You don't need a category split to make your point. The rest of us no doubt feel that what we identify with is relevant to how we edit (and to other editors), simply because we edit in subjects that we know something about (and that often includes having ready access to sources). So, while I strongly support creating 'interest' categories, if I had to choose between (1) delete all, (2) split and (3) keep all at the current title, I would opt for the latter (they can still be renamed later). But my first choice would still be (4) a straight move — no split. I would also not be averse to (5) retaining the identifieds as a subcat of the interesteds, both here and as a general policy; but actually creating the interested cats is more important. Gnostrat 15:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right: I have an interest in the topic, but I am not interested in articles about the subject. That is, my interest is not relevant to my editing or to Wikipedia; thus, I have not expressed it. However, I cannot agree with the claim that most editors express affiliations because they feel that they are "relevant to [their] editing"; I have seen too many userpages with dozens upon dozens of expressed affiliations to believe that they all imply an interest, especially in light of the fact that we have an entire category tree dedicated to explicit expressions of interest. I will see if I can do anything about separating the categorisation for interest and identification userboxes; this will, I hope, introduce some clarity into the situation. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have created :Category:Wikipedians interested in theism as an example of what I'm proposing. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Per BD2412. Marwood 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per BD2412 --Jadger 05:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and oppose renaming. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. Userboxes do not allow people to find other Wikipedians with similar philosophy. This category will foster constructive collaborative editing. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. It seems that categories nominated for deletion because they are either too narrow (single-article) or "waaay to broad". Where exactly is the perfect middle ground? Why weren't all such categories nominated? Leave these categories alone, they are helpful. — DIEGO ^talk 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
comment Can I ask the one who proposed this idea why he did that? Those categories did something to you? Even if you against them for some reason, why delete them? They are eating too much of database or what...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerccio (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Support renaming, and strong keep thereafter. The esteemed BD2412 is correct. For most of these categories, a statement of belief in the given theology serves to avouch a level of expertise as well. If for the more esoteric theologies this is true (and I do so believe), categories for more mainstream theologies are necessary to provide balance and counter systematic bias. Contrary to Black Falcon, I think it is a very rare individual who would support the claim, "I am a theist, but I am not interested in theism." Even for beliefs more mainstream (those that might arise from mere family associations), it is hard to imagine the renaming doing offense to anyone's original intent in joining the category. Xoloz 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Very strong keep; undecided on renaming. --Green wood tree 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Trystero Wikipedians ===

::Category:Trystero Wikipedians - See The Crying of Lot 49. - jc37 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This one is too much of an inside joke. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and BD2412; the userbox reads "This user believes Wikipedia Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep but Rename to "Wikipedians interested in The Crying of Lot 49" and reparent under "Wikipedians interested in literature". This looks like a fandom, rather than a philosophy. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Surrealist Wikipedians ===

::Category:Surrealist Wikipedians - Surrealism - art movement. - jc37 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism. - jc37 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the philosophy. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't even a religious philosophy category. I could also compare this to the New Age movement category which was deleted. Do you propose that we should have Wikipedian categories for all the "Art movements"? If there were more than 3 already created, I suppose I might support the rename suggestion. In any case, it needs to be recategorised. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jc37 above, with a preference for keeping over renaming (identification != interest, and all that). After looking more closely at the main article, I think the comparison to the "New Age" category deleted earlier this month is appropriate. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians ===

::Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians - Neorealism - A political science philosophy. - jc37 19:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or move to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Structural Realism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the philosophy. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
:Renaming will then make this a "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in its future deletion anyway. Also, the other political issue categories have been deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in neorealism (structural realism redirects to neorealism), which should then be made a subcat of :Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, iff the sole member of the category consents. Otherwise, delete per nom. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:A single member category, for a single-article collaboration. If no consensus to delete, however, I'll very weakly support the rename. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians ===

Delete, as nominator. - jc37 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If no consensus to delete, merge to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (convention of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television). - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename, per Black Falcon, and reparent. This should not be under Wikipedians by Philosophy. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 19 =

== Category:Wikipedians who support Notre Dame ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who support Notre Dame}}

Rename to :Category:Wikipedian Notre Dame Fighting Irish fans, convention of the parent category and per the main article (Notre Dame Fighting Irish). Otherwise, delete as a single-user category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename or delete per nom. At minimum needs to conform to naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian California Golden Bears football fans ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Wikipedian California Golden Bears football fans into :Category:Wikipedian California Golden Bears fans

:Nominator's rationale: A "fans" category for a single athletic team of a single university seems to be overly narrow. The category currently contains only one user, and the parent contains only four, so there's no pressing need to subcategorise. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Editors with service awards ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. Note that the awards themselves are not affected (deleted) by the removal of the categorization. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Caution|This deletion is not about the service awards itself, but rather the categories used to categorize users by the rank they have achieved.}}

:{{lc|Editors with service awards}} and subcategories

Delete This category creates a sense of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Users are placed in this category after recieving a service award , which is given for length of time served and quantity (not quality) of edits. There's no requirements for the dits to be constructive at all, its simply time and quantity. However, attempts to delete these awards have been unsuccessful. If we are to be stuck with them, we should at least get rid of the associated categories. An award is one thing, but categorising Wikipedians as Master editors etc. inevitably creates a false sense of hierarchy. Lurker (said · done) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and my points in a similar WP:MFD nomination in here. (My comment is the very last one.) Awards by having "served" Wikipedia a certain amount of time is not something to be honored over other people. Even I am a novice editor, I wear the badge as seen in my userpage, and I am not categorised because of that. I do not comment about the actual awards though. ~Iceshark7 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and per all of the arguments at #Category:Awarded Wikipedians. A category of Wikipedians with awards/barnstars has no actual usefulness (does not foster encyclopedic collaboration); in addition, I consider the creation of a hierarchy of status based on something as arbitrary and uninformative as # of edits and time served to be detrimental. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep No reasons given other than ones that have been cited for previous delete attempts for the awards. The same Keep reasoning (here and here) applies here as well: these awards are merely a statement, or appreciation, of time spent and experience at Wikipedia, and is in no way an attempt at determining an editor's value in relation to his or her edit count. Per this discussion, I will be engaging in some rewording of the service awards though, to combat the possibility of this misconception. I myself like these categories because I'm often curious about how many editors have posted certain service awards.
Comment I'd like to add that I don't think this nomination is proper, because the nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories. In lieu of being able to get them deleted this nomination is an attempt to get smaller aspects of the awards deleted instead. The arguments given for delete are basically that the awards are a bad idea to begin with,which is not an appropriate argument for this discussion, especially since the awards themselves have already been kept, twice.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:50, 10/16/2007
I have no opinion on the awards and did not participate in the MfD. The categories, which are not an indivisble part of the userboxes, do not foster encyclopedic collaboration and serve no real purpose besides self-identification on fairly arbitrary criteria. There is precedent for deleting "awards" categories of this type and even more precedent for deleting mere self-identification categories that do not somehow tie into encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Most average user page material does not serve any purpose in fostering encyclopedic collaboration. A good portion of it, like the thousand or so userboxes and "Wikipedian" categories, are just for fun -- and this one isn't even just for fun; it falls somewhere in the middle. If WP:NOT#MYSPACE is the motivation here then I'd sooner think to see nominations for Wikipedia:Instruments and :Category:Wikipedian guitarists. The service awards category is certainly not as "useless" as those.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:57, 10/16/2007
Since discussions on this page do not result in the deletion of any userspace pages, I don't think that the comparison to "user page material" and userboxes is accurate. As for the "Wikipedian" and "User" categories, please note that a good portion do have some value (e.g., the subcategories of :Category:Wikipedians by language, :Category:Wikipedians by interest, and :Category:Wikipedians by location) and that categories that are merely used for self-identification are routinely deleted. In the case of these categories, self-identification is based in original terminology, arbitrary cut-off points (after all, what's the difference between 40000 edits and 39999?) and in a measure that's not entirely informative (# of edits and length of activity, without consideration for the quality of edits and the level of activity). For these reasons, I disagree with your assessment of the relative worth of these and the "guitarist" categories; but, in any case, the existence or non-existence of other more or less valuable categories has little bearing on the value of these. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference is merely the number of edits and the amount of time the user has been around; that's the point of these awards and corresponding categories, and neither make any implications about the users' editing abilities beyond that. I furthermore fail to see how Wikipedians by interest or location are not "merely used for self-identification" or foster encyclopedic collaboration.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:35, 10/16/2007
Exactly. These categories do not imply anything about a user's ability to contribute encyclopedic content, their propensity to collaborate on certain topics, or anything similar; this is contrast to the 'interest' and 'location' categories, which do imply something about ability and propensity. For instance, an editor who expresses an interest in biology can be reasonably expected to be more likely (than those without an interest in the subject) to want to collaborate on articles related to biology. I personally consider the location categories useful mostly in terms of acquiring free images. For instance, one possible way to obtain a free image of a building in Albany, New York is to contact an editor in :Category:Wikipedians in Albany, New York and ask that they take and upload an image of the building. Similarly, the language categories can be useful for requesting assistance with translation of sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because they don't make a specific implication doesn't mean they're not useful. We are not meant to look at them and automatically say that one editor is better than another based solely on them. But a general idea of a user's experience level can still be useful, depending on the case and the viewer. What an editor's experience level means is subjective, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's useless.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:58, 10/16/2007
But if they don't make an implication, then what do they do? Moreover, why do the userboxes not suffice to express a particular user's 'experience level' in the absence of the category? Categories are only useful if one wishes to create distinct groupings of editors with the intent to browse through them. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
They give you an idea of an editor's experience level. That's all they were ever meant to do. You may not see the value in that but many people do. The categories are useful for those who are curious how many editors there are of a particular experience level (ie. statistical interest). They serve just as much, if not more, of a practical purpose than :Category:Wikipedian guitarists, which I can't see getting much if any "browse through" interest as you've suggested must be present for a category to exist.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:16, 10/16/2007
Your statement assumes that edit count and length of activity by themselves are relatively good indicators of experience. Moreover, user categories are very misleading when it comes to drawing general inferences because they are populated by self-categorisation. If the goal is merely to get a number of users in a certain level, the statistics are not really valid because the # of category members is an indication of the # of userbox users, not the actual number of editors with X edits and Y years. If the goal is to get an overview of the Wikipedia population, you have to assume that self-categorisation produces a random sample or a representative sample. That's a lot of assumptions for few or no valid inferences. Even if we overlook all that for the moment, that type of informal statistical interest could be fairly easily satisfied via the Special:Whatlinkshere function.
As for the 'guitarists' category ... well, I haven't argued for its retention. It may also fail to foster collaboration, but that's an issue for a separate discussion; however, I still consider it marginally more useful, since it could be used to procure free media, such as recordings of guitar music. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(in reply to the experience thing) Well... they are. In order to get a certain award you need to have been on Wikipedia for a certain amount of time, and pretty much would have to have been an active participant during that time in order to rack up the corresponding number of edits. That's a measure of experience. What inferences a viewer makes as a result is entirely up to them. And... what categories associated with userboxes aren't self-categorized? Guitarists and German speakers and basket weavers all categorize themselves. And, I really doubt anyone ever went through the guitarists category to find someone to request music samples from. I doubt anyone ever browsed through the guitarists category period, and my point was to reject the contention that a category's existence must be justified by the potential interest for browsing through it. Statistical interest is still valid Keep rationale -- and again, while the resulting statistic isn't going to be accurate due to self-categorization, the same inaccuracy can be claimed for nearly all user categories.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:00, 10/16/2007
Experience: I just don't see the connection (perhaps it's just a difference of opinion or perspective). Someone who makes a lot of minor changes does not automatically gain more experience from that than someone who makes a big change in a single edit. Someone who makes a few hundred spelling corrections ("teh" --> "the", for instance) does not automatically gain more experience from that than someone who reads through several policy pages and makes a handful of talk page comments.
Inferences: Something as vague as that ("what inferences a viewer makes as a result is entirely up to them") is not really appropriate for categorisation, which requires a certain level of specificity and clarity. The best categories are those whose meaning is unambiguous.
Guitarists: Your comments on the 'guitarist' category constitute fairly good reasons for deleting that category (an outcome that I don't necessarily oppose), but provide little reason to keep these ones. Maybe no one has browsed through the guitarist category, but I (for instance) have browsed through :Category:Wikipedians interested in Africa and :Category:User ru-N. Since some categories are useful for collaboration, the "all or nothing" argument (which is what you're hinting at, I think; please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't really apply.
Browsing: If there is no "potential interest for browsing through" a category, what's the point of its existence? If no one's going to look at a grouping of pages, why group them in the first place?
Self-categorisation and statistics: Well, yes, but the other categories have an a purpose beyond mere self-identification or questionable statistics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, I hate you because you're just as stubborn as me :)
Tell me something, I notice you have a userbox on your page that declares that you've made over 14,000 contributions. What do you feel is the value in declaring that?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:13, 10/16/2007
Equazcion- I'd like to add that I don't think this nomination is proper, because the nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories. In lieu of being able to get them deleted this nomination is an attempt to get smaller aspects of the awards deleted instead. Actually, the reasons I want to see these awards deleted are the reasons I have given. I haver differentiated between keeping the awards and keeping the categories. This is not an attempt to get them deleted by the back door. Please read WP:FAITH. Lurker (said · done) 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe ... ;) The edit count userbox on my userpage doesn't really have any substantive value ... it's just there because I have a liking toward statistics and quantification. In terms of what the userbox says about me as an editor .... nothing, really, except that I have >14K preserved edits. However, I think that userboxes and user categories are substantively different creatures. The former merely express information about particular users (since they appear on individual userpages), and that information may or may not be meaningful to someone other than the user using the userbox. How's that for alliteration? :P The latter groups multiple users according to a certain characteristic, thereby automatically implying that that characteristic is meaningful in a more general context. You may be interested in the discussion that led to the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by number of edits and its subcategories (see [[Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by number of edits), which I think has direct relevance to this discussion and these categories, since they too categorise by edit count. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - We've deleted "award" categories previously as not having an benefit to encyclopedia building, and these are no different. I don't mind the awards, but the categories are pointless and serve no purpose. VegaDark (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Is this a nomination for all service award categories, or just the main one (named above)? If it is for all the categories then the notice of the CfD should be placed on all the category pages, not just the main one.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:47, 10/16/2007
Keep If you don't like it, don't participate; if few people participate, the hierarchy will be harmless. If lots participates that implies that the categories are useful or interesting. Λυδαcιτγ 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It implies nothing of the sort ... users who appear in the categories do so because they used one of the userbox. Appearing in the category does not constitute a statement on the value of the category itself. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't think how these categories could ever be "useful". All it does is to place you in a category of a certain "rank", "Master" being the highest rank. Wikipedia should not be used as a ranking system, and there is no way to tell, who is the best of all editors or something like that. These categories aren't simply helping this. ~Iceshark7 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Here're some links to previous award-based discussions:
:Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2006#Category:Signature_Award
:Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/March_2007#Wikipedia_award_categories
:Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/April_2007#Category:Users_who_have_the_Ben_Bulben_award
:Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/May_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_Wikipedia_award
Delete - We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 10:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No possible benefit to the encyclopedia and it promotes grouping editors by ranks. Chaz ^Beckett 12:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, please tag all categories nominated, in the interests of transparency and least-surprising-result. Broadly I'd favour renaming to something that makes their status and meaning of these somewhat clearer, like say {{cl|Wikipedians of 2 1/2 years' standing}}, or something to that effect. Alai 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Questions of utility aside, that type of title wouldn't be entirely accurate, since the userboxes also involve an edit-count criterion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It'd be entirely accurate, since the characterisation is true of everyone the template's applied to (if said application is correct); it's just not just a complete description. If people really a name that replicates the inclusion criteria in its entirity, then OK, do so (or consider simplifying same, indeed), but the edit-count requirement is in practice somewhat secondary (if that estimation isn't betraying any monstrous editcountitis asssumptions on my part). If we're not leaving "utility" aside (as I assume is the intent of bringing up once more): the "utility" of most of the {{cl|Wikipedians}} hierarchy seems fairly marginal for any purpose beyond satisfying idle curiosity about user-page-template transclusion in a more convenient way than rummages around for the what-links-here, and this would seem to be in that range. Are these in any sense conspicuously less so? Or less "utility" than the templates themselves? Are these in any sense conspicuously less so? Or less "utility" than the templates themselves? Alai 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The characterisation would be true of everyone the template's applied to, but the categorisation would be misleading. A simple userpage notice stating "This user has 2 1/2 years of standing is fine, because that is all that it implies. A category with the title :Category:Wikipedians of 2 1/2 years' standing implies that 2 1/2 years of standing is the only condition for inclusion, which is not true. The would be other people, with 2 1/2 years of standing but less than the requisite # of edits, who would not qualify for inclusion, per the template's conditions.
As for your second point, some user categories probably do exists solely to satisfy some random curiousity and should be deleted. A substantial number of others exist because they group users according to a certain characteristic that can aid collaboration (the 'language' categories can be a first step toward getting translation help, the 'interest' categories suggest good candidates for collaboration on certain topics, and the 'location' categories point out people who can potentially produce free images of particular places). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ack -- please don't "split and re-sign" comments. Had I wanted to leave two fragmentary comments, I'd have left two fragmentary comments. The template's not the only possible means of populating the category: it could be populated from another template, or applied directly. And see the remainder of my comment on other naming (or criteria-simplifying) options. I think attempting to distinguish between purely 'random curiosity' categories, and what are frankly, 'random curiosity' categories with a fig leaf of 'utility' as cover is more trouble than it's worth. If at some point there's general agreement as to "user categories we have suffered to live" it'll be straightforwardly feasible to argue to delete everyone else that doesn't fit such a scheme. Until such time, piecemeal deletion -- on their association with silly templates that people keep trying to deletion, or on the basis of their dodgy names, let us say -- seems likely just to get people tense'n'nervous, and lead to less consistency in user-catting, not more. Alai 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what about "the 'language' categories can be a first step toward getting translation help, the 'interest' categories suggest good candidates for collaboration on certain topics, and the 'location' categories point out people who can potentially produce free images of particular places" constitutes a 'fig leaf'? They are reasons that those categories may be considered useful for encyclopedic collaboration (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify their retention (if the categories were nominated for deletion, that is) is up to participants in the discussion). Is there any reason to keep these categories? Since there is clearly consensus to keep some user categories and consensus to delete others, an "all-or-nothing" argument or approach is not particularly convincing nor really necessary. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:User advogato ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge all to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|User advogato}}

:Note: This nomination also includes :Category:User advogato apprentices, :Category:User advogato journeyers and :Category:User advogato masters

Despite the title, this does not seem to be a programming language category; it's a category for members of the free software community Advogato. Thus, rename the parent category to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato or :Category:Wikipedian contributors to Advogato and upmerge the three subcategories, which currently contain only six members. Information about the 'rank' (I'm not entirely sure that that's correct) of individual editors would still be provided by the userbox. Given that the entire category structure contains 8 users, ease of navigation should not be negatively affected. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The category talk page contains useful/interesting information, so it should be preserved (i.e. moved) if possible. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)}}} Should this follow current discussion for Wikipedian by website?

Comment - (In response to After Midnight's query.) - Yes, it should, but it would still be a separate nom, because on one hand it's a "community", but on the other it deals with open source software. Because of that I'm neutral on keep/delete, but I do agree with Merge all to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato. - jc37 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 18 =

== Category:Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Widthdrawn pending overhaul. WaltCip 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians

:Nominator's rationale - The test tube nomination - This is no doubt going to raise a few alarms. After all, it would seem unthinkable, frivolous, and perhaps in bad faith to delete the core user category of Wikipedia, and thus throw all forms of self-categorization as comprehended by the Wikipedia community. Yet, this outrageous action does not come with no rationale.

:*User categories are redundant - First, the prospect of the user category - in theory - is a fairly versatile and collective idealism. Users group together into a single category with their given knowledge or interest and this will be used to further the collaboration effort on Wikipedia. However, this is redundant to the Wikiproject. User categories are passive while Wikiprojects are active, and people who wish to seek collaboration on interests on an active scale can easily join a Wikiproject. Furthermore, any means of self-identification of interests can be done via userbox or identification on a userpage. If a Wikipedian is actively posting, he or she must therefore sign his or her signature, and a person who wishes to understand the position of this Wikipedian may merely click to the userpage and gather any information, or inquire as such.

:*User categories are divisive - Wikipedians are, in fact, divided by user categories. Tensions regarding self-identification with political, religious, social, and sexual issues occur as a result, as previous debates on UCFD have shown in the past. The persistent roundabouts of the deletions of frivolous and potentially heated categories are a testament to this rationale. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and such. In addition, there are categories present that indicate "notable" or "fantastic" Wikipedians, or those with community valor. There are alternate methods to present these symbols of status than through the user category system.

:*User categories are staggering - ...and as a result, their purpose is lost. When you have an intensely large number of user categories in divisions such as Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by ethnicity, or Wikipedians by location, one can see that it may seem far better to overhaul the user category system or merely provide sufficient indication by userbox/user page notice as a result.

:*User categories are red tape - Really, would one actively search through user categories for a Wikipedian skilled in "foo" profession to aid in the construction or improvement of an article? It is more likely than not that the Wikipedian is already working actively on such an article, or it is already part of a Wikiproject.

:*Conclusion: User categories need an overhaul, for better or for worse - Let's bring this to light. We need to do something to the user category system. Either an outright deletion, a depopulation, or a compression to something that we can make sense of. You may call me crazy, but I truly believe that something needs to be done to reshape this category.--WaltCip 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 17 =

== Category:Lusophone Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:Merge :Category:Lusophone Wikipedians to :Category:User pt, per Lusophone. - jc37 11:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 11:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom, redundant category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge as per nom. We don't need two cats for the same concept. Horologium t-c 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 16 =

== Category:Wikipedians who have appeared on University Challenge ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Category:Wikipedians who have appeared on University Challenge}}

:Nominator's rationale: {{{3|This is currently a subcategory of "Notable Wikipedians"; mere appearance on a game show does not constitute notability as we define it here. I believe this is a bragging cat, like fictitious "Wikipedians who have appeared on Jeopardy" or "Wikipedians who've laid Stanley Baldwin" or "Wikipedians who have stood for office". Orange Mike 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)}}}

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Student organisations, on one hand, and because appearance on a game show may not be considered notable. (I went through several categories of those listed on List of U.S. game shows, and couldn't find any contestant categories.) - jc37 10:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jc37. The mere fact of appearance on a game show doesn't imply an above-average ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content to articles about it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I disagree. You actually have to be selected by your university to take part, which implies the members have a higher than average intelligence, a link that can't be made for other quizzes. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the result of the discussion for the IQ organisation categories (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#IQ org categories) may be relevant here. In that discussion, I was pushed to a 'delete' position for the following reason: "As a category of smart people, its potential usefulness is invalidated by WP:NOR and WP:V. Content should be supported by reliable sources and a reliable source found and added by someone with an IQ of 160 is no better or worse than one found and added by someone with an IQ of 80." You may well disagree with the argument, but I just thought that it might be relevant to this discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Wikipedians by website]] and subcategories ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no result per child discussions. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

These serve absolutely no use in improving the encyclopedia. Knowing whether an editor reads or participates in 4chan, Myspace, Slashdot, or YTMND is irrelevant to the project, and is only potentially useful for social networking, which is not helpful. There is no reason to imagine that people that list themselves as fans or readers of a website are interested in contributing encyclopedic content about it; they are just advertising information about their preferences, and, to be useful, should say that they are interested in collaboration if they are. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - While I don't entirely oppose the nom, It could be argued that at least some of the websites have articles and so the categories are useful for collaboration. Also, the subcats have not been tagged. If/when this happens, I would like to see the Wikipedia sister projects, the Wikia projects, and "other" wikis, listed in separate, individual noms, if you wouldn't mind. - jc37 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, serves no collaborative potential. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|jc37 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)}}} - Since subcats were not tagged. - jc37 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Tagging subcats and listing them in grouped nominations. - jc37 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC) - Actually I think I'll ask User:AMbot if he would be so kind as to tag these (These are every subcat of Wikipedians by Website.) - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete No use for this. Marlith ^T/C 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete this and the community cats below as well. Not needed. --Kbdank71 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Online communities, forums, and blogs ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who use 4chan - Imageboard

::Category:Wikipedians who use DeviantART - online artistic community

::Category:Wikipedians who use Facebook - Social network service

::Category:Wikipedians who use Flickr - a photo sharing website and web services suite, and an online community platform, which is generally considered an early example of a Web 2.0 application.

::Category:Wikipedians who use Gaia Online - an anime-themed forums-based website.

::Category:Wikipedians who use Last.fm - a UK-based internet radio and music community website, founded in 2002. It is the world's largest social music platform.

::Category:Wikipedians who use Slashdot - often abbreviated as /. is a science, science fiction, and technology-related news website

::Category:Wikipedians who play There.com - Billed on its homepage as "...an online getaway where you can hang out with your friends and meet new ones...", There defines itself as a service providing a shared experience that allows people to interact in an online society.

::Category:Wikipedians who use StumbleUpon - a web browser plugin that allows its users to discover and rate webpages, photos, videos, and news articles. A small proportion of the 'stumbles' users come across (typically less than 2%) are sponsored pages matching their topics of interest.

::Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND - an initialism for "You're The Man Now, Dog", is an online community centered on the creation of hosted web pages featuring a juxtaposition of a single image or a simple slideshow, which may be animated and/or tiled along with optional large zooming text and a looping sound file. Images used on such sites are usually either created or edited by users. Most are meant to expose or reflect the more inane facets of pop culture, and some can be considered inside jokes.

Strong delete - These, I think, are what User:Dmcdevit was referring to in his initial nomination above. - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace and a directory of users of various social networking sites carries no value. Merely using one of millions of websites implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete All It could disrupt the Wikipedia. Marlith ^T/C 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Currency tracking sites ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who use Where's George - a website that tracks the natural geographic circulation of American paper money.

::Category:Wikipedians who use Where's Willy - a website that tracks Canadian paper money — most commonly five dollar bills, but also higher denominations.

Delete - While interesting, I don't see these as useful. - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per above. Merely using a website implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. A userbox or userpage notice is sufficient to express the affiliation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely Unessecary. Marlith ^T/C 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians who use Grid.org ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who use Grid.org - was the website and organization that ran distributed computing projects such as the United Devices Cancer Research Project. It retired on April 27, 2007.

Delete - inactive project - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jc37. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete no one needs it. Marlith ^T/C 03:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians who participate in NaNoWriMo ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who participate in NaNoWriMo - or National Novel Writing Month, is a creative writing project originating in the United States in which each participant attempts to write a 50,000 word novel in a single month.

Delete - While interesting, I don't see this as helpful. Though it's about writing, it's about writing fiction. Really bad idea, I think. - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The skills required to write good, gripping fiction are different from those required to write encyclopedic content (especially in light of the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Who uses User categories anyway? Marlith ^T/C 03:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Wikia ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who use Wookieepedia - Star Wars wiki

Strong keep and Rename to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wookieepedia - There are currently Manual of style discussions concerning use of topic-specific Wikia wikis. - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Merely using a website implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. There are thousands (more?) of wikis and I oppose the desire to establish any sort of stronger connection between Wikipedia and these other wikis (I'm not certain if that's what the MOS discussions are about, but I know that some users support this). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
: Well, for one, there is a discussion about moving "in-universe" information to Wikia wikis, such as Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha. And such "transwiki" moves have already occurred. - jc37 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think its very much relevant to editing the appropriate articles, as jc47 says--rename as per his suggestion. DGG (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

=== Other wikis ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who use LyricWiki

::Category:Wikipedians who use WikiWikiWeb - It contains various topics and discussions about software engineering. The term wiki that is used to refer to other similar groups of modifiable Web pages, e.g. Wikipedia, came from this original wiki.

Keep and Rename "...who use..." to "...who contribute to..." - I can see how these could be helpful for collaboration. (Especially open-source information use.) - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per my comment at #Wikia. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Other encyclopedias ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename EM to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Encyclopaedia Metallum, delete Everything2. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who use Encyclopaedia Metallum - non-wiki Internet encyclopedia project

::Category:Wikipedians who use Everything2 - non-wiki Internet encyclopedia project

Keep and Rename "...who use..." to "...who contribute to..." - I can see how knowing how to write encyclopedic articles can be useful. - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:Delete :Category:Wikipedians who use Everything2, per Black Falcon, below. While there may be encyclopedic articles present, They needn't follow NPOV, and are seemingly lost in the midst of bloggish entries. - jc37 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Everything2, which seems to be more of a blog/Uncyclopedia mix than an encyclopedia (my apologies if I gathered the wrong impression, but I just randomly clicked a few articles they had); no opinion on EM. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete It hurts Wikipedia by encouraging others to rely on other encyclopedias. We want a monopoly here. Marlith ^T/C 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep-- partly on the basis of the negativity shown by the preceding comment--which i hope was written as satire. DGG (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

=== Other collaborative encyclopedia-like projects ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename MusicBrainz to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to MusicBrainz, keep others. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders - digital library project

::Category:Wikipedians who use MusicBrainz - Online music database. Uses a wiki to teach how to use the database

::Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project - (ODP), also known as dmoz (from directory.mozilla.org, its original domain name), is a multilingual open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by Netscape that is constructed and maintained by a community of volunteer editors.

::Category:Wikipedians who contribute to OpenStreetMap - Open source map project. Uses a wiki for WikiProjects related to the map.

Keep and Rename "...who use..." to "...who contribute to..." - I can see how these can be useful for collaboration. (Especially open-source information use.) - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep OpenStreetMap and Open Directory Project; no opinion on the others. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Dictionaries ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep FotW, rename LEO to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Link Everything Online. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World - Internet-based vexillological organization and resource (including dictionary of terms) is a member of Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques

::Category:Wikipedians who use Link Everything Online - LEO (website). online Dictionary

Keep and Rename "...who use..." to "...who contribute to..." - I can see how these can be useful for collaboration. - jc37 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep FotW; no opinion on LEO. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 14 =

==Category:Wikipedians who like Death Note==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who like Death Note}}

Delete, What purpose does it serve. It dosen't help the encyclopedia and could hurt it by making Wikipedians discuss matters that aren't related to Wikipedia. Marlith ^T/C 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:. . . because heaven forbid anyone ever do that! Also, you need to add {{tl|cfd-user}} to the category if you're putting it up here (it'd be nice to notify the creators, too). GreenReaper 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's just a harmless category to keep track of how many people use one of the three Death Note userboxes up at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Anime#Death Note. Look at the bottom of that list, and you'll see a ton of cats that people use for the same purposes. It's not hurting anybody.--十八 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, harmless and I don't see any guidelines or policies being cited here for why it should be deleted.--SeizureDog 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - An interest in pop culture category. Weak, because it appears to be a single article. I prefer deletion to merging, in no consensus to keep. - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

==Category:Han Chinese Wikipedians==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Han Chinese Wikipedians}}

:This serves no collaborative purpose and is not needed. Marlith ^T/C 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete All members are added by {{tl|User Han Chinese}} which places them in :Category:Chinese Wikipedians as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into :Category:Chinese Wikipedians per Hersfold. (I say 'merge', instead of 'delete', because there may be some users who added themselves to the category manually – that is, without the userbox). The categories overlap too much to justify separation; not surprising since >90% of the PRC's population is Han Chinese. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

==Category:Chinese Wikipedians==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Chinese Wikipedians}}

:We don't need this if it dosen't help us work on the encyclopedia. Marlith ^T/C 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose ~~None of the user categories help us work on the encyclopedia~~ - that's not a valid reason for deletion. Note the existence of the other 144 nationality categories. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a great many user categories are considered useful in that respect (such as the subcategories of :Category:Wikipedians by language and :Category:Wikipedians by interest) and there is ample precedent (a few hundred discussion, at least) that failure to foster collaboration is a valid reason for deleting user categories. That said ... very weak keep. Although I am not entirely convinced of the value of these categories, I can't think of a reason that this category should be considered separately from the other nearly 150 ethnic/national identification categories. Any attempt to delete that category tree should ideally consist of a bulk nomination; however, I see no purpose in making such a nomination, since it's practically guaranteed to fail. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized after I said that that it was a rather stupid comment. My apologies. In hindsight, however, it could be useful for the encyclopedia - you might be able to expect someone of Chinese descent to have a generally better knowledge of Chinese language and history and so forth than someone from another background (note use of word "might"), and almost certainly an interest in those types articles (note use of word "almost"). So I do actually have some reasoning behind the above statement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's true ... the categories may have some utility, although I'll admit that I haven't yet given much thought to the matter. My 'keep' recommendation is based mostly on my belief that a 'delete' result here will almost certainly be overturned at WP:DRV if not accompanied by the deletion of the remaining 150 categories, which (as I noted above) I view to be a highly unlikely outcome. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep on practical grounds, along with Black Falcon. How to handle these is something that needs further thought and more general consensus.DGG (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Black Falcon. --Kbdank71 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 13 =

== Category:Wikipedians who like Only Fools and Horses ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who like Only Fools and Horses}}

:Nominator's rationale: {{{3|Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia about real life notable things. Categories for the personal likes and dislikes of the people who edit Wikipedia is not encyclopaedic and is, to be frank, nonsense. B1atv 09:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)}}}

Please move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, plus the several following. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Procedural relisting, moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Just another potential subcat of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A single-user subcat that merely expresses a personal preference. Although I would normally suggest a procedural keep to permit a bulk nomination of all similar categories, the fact that this (and the five others nominated below) were all created and are populated by the same user lead me to prefer deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who like Arthur ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who like Arthur}}

Procedural relisting, moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no collabrative purpose. Marlith ^T/C 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Just another potential subcat of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television. - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A single-user subcat that merely expresses a personal preference. Although I would normally suggest a procedural keep to permit a bulk nomination of all similar categories, the fact that this (and the five others nominated above and below) were all created and are populated by the same user lead me to prefer deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who like Dogtanian ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who like Dogtanian}}

Procedural relisting, moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Just another potential subcat of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A single-user subcat that merely expresses a personal preference. Although I would normally suggest a procedural keep to permit a bulk nomination of all similar categories, the fact that this (and the five others nominated above and below) were all created and are populated by the same user lead me to prefer deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who like Oasis ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who like Oasis}}

Delete by discussion of July 29th, and please move this discussion to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Procedural relisting, moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
'Keep - Oasis (band) is notable, if merely by the fact that a long-standing set of articles exist. Check out Template:Oasis, for a rather large list. - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:*comment: Oasis maybe notable, but Wikipedians who like them aren't. This isn't about Oasis, it's about Wikipedia, and therefore the category serves no purposes whatsoever B1atv 06:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per precedent. Also, a A single-user subcat that merely expresses a personal preference. Although I would normally suggest a procedural keep to permit a bulk nomination of all similar categories, the fact that this (and the five others nominated above and below) were all created and are populated by the same user lead me to prefer deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who love D.W ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who love D.W}}

Procedural relisting, moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to :Category:Wikipedians who like Arthur, per D. W. Read. - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A single-user subcat that merely expresses a personal preference. Although I would normally suggest a procedural keep to permit a bulk nomination of all similar categories, the fact that this (and the five others nominated above and below) were all created and are populated by the same user lead me to prefer deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who like Red Dwarf ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who like Red Dwarf}}

Procedural relisting, moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13 – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Just another potential subcat of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television - jc37 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A single-user subcat that merely expresses a personal preference. Although I would normally suggest a procedural keep to permit a bulk nomination of all similar categories, the fact that this (and the five others nominated above) were all created and are populated by the same user lead me to prefer deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Montgomery Bell Academy Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Montgomery Bell Academy Wikipedians}}

:Delete, we decided against Wikipedians by high school. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete no purpose. Marlith ^T/C 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete by precedent. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Aspiring physicians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Aspiring physicians}}

This is a category for users who aspire to be physicians. As such, it is a 'wish' category, for which there is ample precedent for deletion: see here, here, here and here. People want or wish to have or be many things, but few or none of them are relevant to building an encyclopedia. This may also be considered a "not" category, in that it is a category of people who are not physicians. If kept, the category must be renamed to make clear that it is a user category.

Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Another option is to merge into :Category:Wikipedian medical students, but I am reluctant to support that, since one can be aspire to be a physician without actually being a medical student. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
DeleteeWe don't need no user cats. Marlith ^T/C 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:User Antifeminist ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|User Antifeminist}}

Potentially divisive, and incorrect naming convention at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete we don't need user catagories exept for Wikiprojects. Marlith ^T/C 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't Delete Why would user category antifeminist be deleted while usercategory femenist be allowed?Philip Gustafson 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Two wrongs don't make a right - the existence of one category does not justify the subsequent existence of another.--WaltCip 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and take a look at the userbox as well. The category may not be divisive, but the userbox is. Horologium t-c 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This category merely expresses opposition to something and is effectively an 'oppose/support' category. Such categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration and may be divisive (have a look at Template:User Antifeminist), and there is ample precedent for deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 12 =

== Category:Wikipedians in the Association of Members' Advocates ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Association of Members' Advocates - The category claims to just be people who have the userbox on their page. The reason is that the Association of Members' Advocates has been "shut down" and is marked as historical. There has been repeated consensus that categories shouldn't exist just to show who has a specific userbox (whatlinkshere is enough for this). - jc37 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom as a membership category for a defunct project. The category can be recreated (perhaps under a different title) if the project is revived; until then, whatlinkshere should suffice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who are currently online ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who are currently online - While this seems nice at first glance, consider that it's a lot easier to tell by checking one's watchlist or someone's contribution history, than to guess based on this category, which may or may not be updated correctly (how often does one forget to turn out the lights...) Also, in some cases categorisation is a result of a script which by current use categorises the monobook page to the category as well. And User:Flameviper is indef blocked/banned. Before this category is deleted, I wonder about the results of a checkuser (F). - jc37 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Several of these are monobook pages and most of the users in the category are most certainly not online. One user has been in the category continuously since March, but has made only 4 edits since then (2 in March and 2 in September). Others haven't edited for anywhere from 12+ hours to several months. Contribution history is a much more reliable indicator of on- or off-line status. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedians by active status ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

::Category:Wikipedians who are partially active

:(Willing to split this nomination if requested) - As Wikipedia continues on, these categories will become voluminous in size. Note that there are indef blocked users categorised this way as well. I think that this is a great non-userbox example of where the userpage notice is fine, but the category is questionable. - jc37 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete both - as nominator. - jc37 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. I can think of no value in browsing through a category of inactive or partially active users. It may be useful to know whether a specific user is inactive or partially active (that purposes is served by userpage notices), but a category of everyone who self-identifies as partially active or inactive is not useful. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Awarded Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Delete per WP:SNOW. Deleted by User:Mike Selinker; non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Awarded Wikipedians}}

:Nominator's rationale: {{{3|Self-agrandizement and not needed, barnstars are not defining, I urge Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)}}}

Delete. If awards were anything other than "I, random person X, decide to give you an award right now", this might make sense, but they are not. -Amarkov moo! 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Rename~~ I created the category. No self-agrandizement there, just to know who has got and who didn't. Can be renamed :Category:Wikipedians who received barnstars Heltzen ◩ 11:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Amarkov. The fact of the matter is that receiving a barnstar is really no different than receiving a "good job" comment on one's talk page; the former just carries something of an "Ooh ... shiny" component for which most people (myself included) probably have a weakness. More importantly, a category of Wikipedians who have received barnstars (there are thousands) does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The explanations and rationale given afterwards make all sense, I change my opinion, please delete Heltzen ◩ 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Amarkov's argument makes perfect sense. Neranei (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian homemakers ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian homemakers}}

The utility of the 'by profession' categories lies in the fact that being a member of a certain profession usually implies possession of certain specialised knowledge or, more importantly, access to or awareness of information and sources about a subject. That argument does not seem to apply to this category.

Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I was going to say "Keep", as it's a profession with a knowledgebase like any other. But it occurred to me that this could be seen as a "not" category. There are all the other professions and then there are homemakers. I'm torn at the moment, so staying neutral for now. - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - How can this category be used for collaboration? "Homemaker" is far to broad of a category to facilitate collaboration on any articles. VegaDark (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - being a homemaker requires more work than most professions and doing it right requires skills worth identifying. Mikebar 14:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
What knowledge or skills associated with this profession do you deem relevant to encyclopedia-building? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Category:User nds-NL ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. This should probably follow whatever precedent gets established at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Category:User als and subcats. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|User nds-NL}}

:Note: This nomination also includes :Category:User nds-NL-1

This is a single-user category for speakers of Dutch Low Saxon, a variant of Low German; all regional and local dialects of "Low German" and/or "Low Saxon" receive the ISO 639-3 code "nds". We should not create separate categories (with user-created classification codes) for minor variations across national boundaries.

Merge into :Category:User nds and :Category:User nds-1, respectively. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:Note that there is a separate Wikipedia for Dutch Low German [http://nds-nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veurpagina]. Apparently the speakers from Germany and the Netherlands couldn't work together and split. This would justify a separate category. --Chlämens 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The reason why there is nds-NL.wikipedia.org is that on nds.wikipedia.org they prescribed an orthography shaped after German spelling, the :nds:Sass’sche Schrievwies, since most of the original contributors were from Germany. The Low Saxon speakers of the Netherlands, however, preferred an orthography shaped after Dutch spelling, so in the end they forked. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏ 08:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian Primera División de México fans ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian Primera División de México fans}}

:Note: This nomination also includes :Category:Wikipedian Club América fans, :Category:Wikipedian Club Deportivo Guadalajara fans, :Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans, :Category:Wikipedian UANL Tigres fans and :Category:Wikipedian Club Universidad Nacional fans

These are userbox-populated categories for fans of individual teams in the Primera División de México. Aside from the userbox creator, who appears in all five subcats and the parent category, the subcats contain only one other user and the parent two others. I propose that we do one of the following:

Delete all categories, including the parent, as too narrow in scope/lacking collaborative value.
Upmerge the subcategories to the parent category, which will take care of the issue of overcategorisation and category clutter and also reduce the WP:MYSPACE aspect of specific "fan" categories.

In both cases, the favoured team of each individual user will still be identified by the userbox on their userpage.

Delete all or umperge as nom, and per the precedents here and here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

=October 11=

==[[:Category:Pan-Green Wikipedians]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Pan-Green Wikipedians}}

:Delete, sounds like an ideology or organization, see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and precedent. It's actually an informal political coalition, but its effectively a broad 'ideology' category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

==[[:Category:Pan-Blue Wikipedians]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Pan-Blue Wikipedians}}

:Delete, sounds like an ideology or organization, see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and precedent. It's actually an informal political coalition, but its effectively a broad 'ideology' category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 10 =

== Category:Furry Wikipedians ==

{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 December 11|page=Category:Furry_Wikipedians}}

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Furry Wikipedians - "This user is a Furry." - This is another notice of self-identification category, not intended for collaboration. In discussing this with a user involved with the Furry WikiProject, I found that the Project doesn't have a cat, but just keeps a list. I added a userbox subpage to their Project, and created such a category, should they wish to use it (which is wholly their choice, obviously). In any case, as I was saying, this category is merely a notice about self-identification. Those who wish to collaborate about all things furry, are welcome to join the WikiProject, or even just "help out" by joining in on the tasks there. (I notice that they have several bounties, so go to it : ) - I'm not suggesting a rename or merge, since that's apparently not the intent of the category, and I think we should attempt to avoid miscategorising Wikipedians. jc37 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - jc37 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep based on precedent, with no intention of restating the arguments that have been made too many times already. See this, this, this, and this. I'm not saying that the consensus for keeping is strong, but it's certainly to the point where nothing that happens in this CfD will change the lack of consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I disagree with the assumption that user categories are only useful if they are used directly for collaboration. I believe such categories foster a sense of community that has been lost as Wikipedia has grown, as well as increasing the chance of people joining and remaining at Wikipedia (as explained on talk, and in the discussion below for LGBT Wikipedians). I'm sure some people would say "where do you draw the line?" Personally, I probably wouldn't delete any but the obvious "joke" categories, because I don't see a compelling need to do so. If the categories make their participants happier to be Wikipedians, that is good enough a reason to have them. GreenReaper 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
For the love of $DEITY, Keep! First the Great Userbox Purge, and now the Prolonged User Category Purge. When it comes to the cleanliness of your namespaces, you are all downright obsessive-compulsive (whose class of category I see you have also gone after). Pursuing this crusade is a waste of your time, and defending against it is a waste of our time. Also per GreenReaper and xDanielx. ---Bersl2 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Okey-dokey. If this UCFD closes as a keep, I'll go ahead and create :Category:Nazi Wikipedians. Remember, deleting it is a waste of your time, it's only a category. Footnote: I am not equating Nazis to Furries, I am making a harmless out-of-context analogy.--WaltCip 10:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:**See, that doesn't work on me. By all means, create :Category:Wikipedians who hate bersl2 and have slept with his mother if you really want to; I don't care—not enough to want to do anything about it—and I certainly would never ask for administrative action unless action had first been taken against me (e.g., defacing my user page). —Bersl2 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:**Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - ∅ (∅), 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with GreenReaper. Such categories foster a sense of community, and on a humongous project like this, a sense of community is really important, also, it is not keeping anyone from contributing, therefore it is harmless. Neranei (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, useful for collaboration. WikiProject Furry found me through this category. :-) - ∅ (∅), 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:Technically they found you because you were using that userbox. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing "whatlinkshere" to the userbox to find you. And for that matter, you could have just as easily have seen (and then used) the WikiProject userbox if it was placed (or linked to) where you found that one... - jc37 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::There are significant usability issues with the procedures you describe, especially for new users. There is no obvious way to go from "see userbox on someone's page" to "find list of users using that userbox with Special:Whatlinkshere". Users have to know that that special page exists, and that it will mention pages which do not link to but merely include the template - and before that, they have to understand the concept of templates being pages, which in itself is not obvious. One of the more common questions I get from newbies is "how do I add a userbox to my page?". User categories are popular because they are easy to use, and it is easy for new users to add the userboxes on them because they don't have to figure out the name of the template or what to do with it. Instead, instructions are given on the category page. Nor do they have to figure out how to find others using it - they are listed right there, in the category. GreenReaper 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I think I might compare this to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't allow fair-use images when a corresponding free image is available. Yes, the Fair-use image may be "easier" to obtain, but that doesn't make it the preferred choice. Also, you don't have to go to the "special" page to find "whatlinkshere". look over to the left and you'll see it. And if they found the userbox, they can find "whatlinkshere". - jc37 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Note: This DRV on LGBT issues, endorses the idea that identification categories shouldn't exist. - jc37 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:LGBT Wikipedians ==

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

::Category:LGBT Wikipedians - I apparently accidentally overlooked this category when nominating the rest of the Wikipedians by sexuality or gender identification. Same rationale as the previous nom. (That it's used as a notice of idenitification, and is apparently not intended as a grouping for collaboration.) From the category: "These users identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.". In addition, if any individual wished to collaborate on such topics, there is always Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. - jc37 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - After having slaughtered all of the other categories,

::Category:Asexual Wikipedians

::Category:Pansexual Wikipedians

::Category:Polyamorous Wikipedians

::Category:Bisexual Wikipedians

::Category:Homoflexible Wikipedians

::Category:Heteroflexible Wikipedians

::Category:Femme Wikipedians

::Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians

::Category:Gay Wikipedians

::Category:Bear cub Wikipedians

::Category:Lesbian Wikipedians

::Category:Queer Wikipedians

::Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians

::Category:Transsexual Wikipedians

:you just have to make sure you get them all, huh? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Enough already. You got rid of the "fringe" groups. But there is no good argument that this doesn't help collaboration. You don't have to identify as LGBT to be a member of the LGBT wikiproject. Kolindigo 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. I fall under this category, yet I claim that my sexuality, gender identity, or lack thereof has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. - ∅ (∅), 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:Comment Yet you proclaim your bisexuality via a userbox on your user page. Interesting. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::That's just to stop people from calling me a homophobe when I vote delete on something like this. - ∅ (∅), 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Being open about who you are, and what you're like in RL has little (or nothing) to do with writing. I openly state that I'm female, homesick, and that I sleep odd hours via userboxes. Does that affect how I write as an editor? No. Many editors choose to display personal info via userboxes, but it doesn't affect the way they edit. :) Ariel♥Gold 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Maybe, and maybe not. A lot of times, people's agenda on WP can be related directly to the userboxes displayed on a user's user space. I was just pointing out that maybe while not directly saying I'm bisexual and therefore I edit, by placing a userbox declaring one's bisexuality, it's still giving that public position that is closely related to the user making use of the userbox and making contributions/edits/delete votes. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 10:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I thought about this for a long time. The arguments for deletion are reasonable. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. I don't want it to become MySpace. But, like it or not, Wikipedia is a social space. Last time I checked, it was the 9th busiest website in the world. Most of those people are just here to look, but there is a huge user community here as well. Like any large community, it has subgroups. What I have learnt over at Wikia is that a sense of shared community is important; and beyond a certain point, that sense of community fades, because the group is just too large. Just being a Wikipedian isn't enough. People therefore seek out smaller groups with which they have an affinity, even if they are not necessarily intending to edit in those areas. When I look at :Category:Furry Wikipedians (which I've been told is liable to be nominated here soon, for the fifth time), I know that even though I am among a huge sea of editors, I am not alone. There are people of common interest here - and not just one or two, but two hundred of them (when the template isn't being messed around with). And that is a good feeling. It attracts me to the website, just like the presence of other furry fans attracted me to Second Life. Is it the only reason I come here? Of course not. But it is one of the reasons, and it does make me happier to see it. So don't be too quick to dismiss features of community-building that aren't directly related to writing encyclopedia articles. You may be pruning away the reasons why we're here today. GreenReaper 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:Since this concept is not specific to this category I have elaborated in talk. GreenReaper 11:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per the keepers here, especially GreenReaper. Although I assume it's unintentional, it's borderline homophobia. But it's overwhelming deletionism. These categories are useful as collaborative and community building tools, and there are no rational arguments made against that. And there are enough editors within this category. I wouldn't be fighting for a cat with only two members. WP is not a print encyclopedia. so please stop trying to force it into that mold. — Becksguy 10:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wish I'd been aware my user category was proposed for deltion and apparently failed (although the notice in my edit history links to the wrong thing altogether). My argument is strong keep, perhaps reverse the previous motion for deletion. The category is useful for among other things, statistical evaluation.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment As with all of the Sexuality and gender identification categories above, CfD of this cat is against WP:POINT in that it's an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:*How so? --Kbdank71 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom and User:I do not exist. --Kbdank71 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - To respond to some of what I've read so far:

"you just have to make sure you get them all, huh?" - That's called "being thorough", I suppose.
"You got rid of the "fringe" groups." - I don't know if I would place such a label, personally.
"Although I assume it's unintentional, it's borderline homophobia." - Actually I take very strong offense to that. You know absolutley noting about me in this regard (and as far as I am concerned it will stay that way).
"But it's overwhelming deletionism." - No it's not. And incidenatlly, feel free to note the first few userboxes on my user page.
"These categories are useful as collaborative and community building tools, and there are no rational arguments made against that." - I suppose it depends on how one defines "rational". If you define it as "people who agree with me", then I suppose you may not find the reasonings "rational".
"WP is not a print encyclopedia. so please stop trying to force it into that mold." - This has nothing to do with that either.
"The category is useful for among other things, statistical evaluation." - It's been noted in the past that "Whatlinkshere" is useful enough for that.
"As with all of the Sexuality and gender identification categories above, CfD of this cat is against WP:POINT in that it's an abuse of process, failure to assume good faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, gaming the system and just flat out disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point." - Well now. Where to begin. I think the best answer is probably WP:AAGF. And personally, I seriously wonder if you are not skating rather close to every link you accuse me of.
Only one person who said "keep" seems to at least understand the nomination, which is this (which I've stated before): There is a current concensus at WP:CFD that categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices. Well the same thing has been happening with User categories as well. It isn't new, and there is no specific target to the LGBT category, except that it's a notice of self-identity not a group of people interested in collaborating on this topic. (It is stated on the category page rather clearly, as I noted in the nom.) If they were interested in collaborating on this topic, then they can join the WikiProject. I sincerely do not understand the histrionics involving this. It strongly fees like: It's ours and we want it. Which, of course isn't much of an argument for keeping, and really just feeds into the supposition that this is truly being used merely for "mySpace" purposes. I understand User:GreenReaper's want for such, but that's not what the category system is for (I won't bother with quoting the first pillar or WP:NOT. I'm sure you've all heard it before, by now.) I currently don't have a problem with userpages being used for building community (as long as it doesn't get out of hand, of course). But the categories aren't in userspace, and need to be clear in usage. And just to clarify for those way out there in the cheap seats, This category wasn't "singled out", but is just another of several. As I said before, other such categories, such as Wikipedians by birth, and Wikipedians by marital status, have been removed as well. - jc37 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:"There is a current concensus at WP:CFD that categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices." I won't link to specific CfDs since there are far too many, but I think your assertion is somewhat dubious. Look at this CfD (which includes the category in question) from August for example, which had a rather fat snowball running in favor of keeping. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::First, that wasn't a link to a WP:CFD page. Second, I would welcome your "far too many" links to CfDs (or even to UCFDs). All I need do to just start for examples is to scroll down this page... Though there have been a lot more than you might imagine. - jc37 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:It's important not to damn things just because they're not being used the "right" way. No, categories weren't intended for collecting groups of users; but they have turned out to be rather effective tools for just that purpose. What matters is whether or not the category helps or hurts Wikipedia. My main arguments for it helping are above. Perhaps you don't think it helps very much - it's not an argument that can offer much tangible proof - but I've yet to see a truly compelling argument for how such user categories hurt Wikipedia, either. They can be abused, but abusers have plenty of other ways of causing problems, like going down the list of editors of an article. They aren't exactly being pushed upon readers, either. They're there for users (or prospective users) who are already looking at user pages, and can also be useful for both those both starting and maintaining WikiProjects. GreenReaper 23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait for the outcome of this DRV, and act accordingly. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Jc37's detailed comment above. The category is used merely for decorative purposes (as a userpage notice) and does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Mere self-identification implies little or nothing in terms of interest or ability to contribute. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Without community-building, Wikipedia will wither and die. MattHucke ^(t) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:*~~The Chewbacca defense might work in the Oval Office, but not here.~~ Can you provide any reasoning behind this category being, as you say, "community building"?--WaltCip 16:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Actually, without article writing, Wikipedia will wither and die. You don't need to build a community to edit. --Kbdank71 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::*In my experience, a sense of community and shared purpose is vital to [http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:LP1/Full_text building and maintaining a successful wiki]. The stronger the community, the stronger the wiki. If there is no community, the chance of any significant projects being undertaken is greatly reduced. Random editors dropping by now and then to add trivia or correct spelling entries do not constitute such a community. The reason sites like WikiFur, Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha have succeeded is because they have dedicated communities behind them who care personally about the site and its topic - and this happens on Wikipedia, too. The individuals concerned may or may not be associated with WikiProjects in their areas of interest, just as the contributors to separate wikis may or may not be involved in the administration of those wikis; but they still wish to belong to a "community of X on Wikipedia." Such WikiProjects are unlikely to start without the presence of a community, and they do not replace the need for it. GreenReaper 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*But how is this category, other than perhaps being a buzzword or a feel-good structured system (and as I've seen by many of the keep rationales here, powered by intense emotion), a contributor to the community, when it is - in fact - divisive?--WaltCip 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::::*Arguing that it should be deleted because it's causing disagreement because you think it should be deleted is something of a circular argument. :-) I've explained above and in talk how such categories contribute to building the community of users in a particular area. I honestly don't know why people outside of that area want it deleted - or why they care at all about such categories. My guess is that they underestimate its value, and overestimate its cost in terms of performance. It's like the manager who proposed mandatory bag searches by security staff because they suspected someone was taking half-used toilet rolls home with them from the office. Pushing for the deletion of such categories causes ten times the problems the category could ever have theoretically caused, without even proving that there's a problem in the first place. GreenReaper 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - What is the purpose of this nomination, other than to turn Wikipedia into some Metropolis like cyber ghetto, where we do nothing but edit this fucking encyclopedia and subjugate our personalities and individuality for the sake of the Wiki Police State? What with all the WP:AGF and WP:NPA ad nauseum, this site is already blander than cottage cheese. Anymore obliteration of our actual humanness and you'll see people jumping ship en masse...with me leading the pack. Jeffpw 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:*If you are so outraged that something as innocuous as a category is deleted then perhaps you should leave, considering that any stress placed on you by actual edit-warring would have rather grave results.--WaltCip 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. So you're in the LGBT group, whoopie. Don't need a category for it. People within the LGBT community (not just on Wikipedia) need to stop wearing their sexuality like it's some kind of badge. Whether you're gay, straight, bi, or happen to like it from chickens doesn't matter, and you don't need to shout it to the world. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:Comment - Well done, ^demon. Spoken like a true, card-carrying member of the opressive majority. I'll stop wearing my sexuality on my sleeve just as soon as you and your right wing cohorts stop trying to marginalize me and my LGBT brothers and sisters and give us our full civil rights. Deal? And as a quick aside, ^demon's comment beautifully illustrates why this category is valuable: if only so that LGBT Wikipedians know who to turn to for support when being bashed. Jeffpw 12:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::Comment: WP:AGF please. I am a card-carrying homosexual democrat. Stop assuming you know me when you don't. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::Comment - Homophobic rant? Demon just said there is no need for a category of any sexual basis. Any desire to indicate such thing can easily be done outside of Wikipedia, or on the userpage itself.--WaltCip 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in Strongest Possible terms. Ever since i became a member of Wikipedia I have seen several aspects of borderline homophobia that results in this sort of deletions. First, we got rid of the category of people who oppose LGBT rights (whitewash?). Then we got rid of the individual LGBT categories. Call me paranoid, but i see this as a naked attempt to erase LGBT recgonition from Wikipedia community altogether. --Bud 07:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not a soapbox... Oh and WP:TINC either... - jc37 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Comment It's not a soapbox but opinions and observation sure aren't banned to fantasy island. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::"Ever since i became a member of Wikipedia I have seen several aspects of borderline homophobia that results in this sort of deletions." - How, in any sense of the words, would you consider those comments to be in good faith? No, you're rather clearly sopaboxing, and btw, even if we deleted ALL of the usercategories, that would have nothing to do with topics in article space. So the accusation is unfounded, insulting to everyone who comments on this page, and honestly doesn't belong on this page, which is discussing categories, not your opinions and observation about what you suggest may be paranoia. (Which, by the way, about as close a definition of soapboxing as one might get. (See points 1 and 2 on that policy page.) - jc37 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Why, exactly, do I think this category is useless? That's simply because it's way too inclusive. Simply put, it doesn't categorize users based on what they are but what they're not: 100% heterosexuals whose gender identity coincides 100% with their physical sex. We might as well have a Category:Wikipedians who are not white. I don't buy into the community-building argument - this is just too broad. - ∅ (∅), 13:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:No, it's more basic than that, it's because it's used to identify, period. It doesn't matter what it's identifying about the user. If a user cat is merely being used as a means of self-identification, then it should be deleted. Categories are for grouping things for navigation of some kind, not to gaggle like things together. We don't have Category:Wikipedian women, or any of a number of other personal identification traits that could be tied to articles (or WikiProjects related to those articles). And finally, as noted on Wikipedia:Userboxes, not every userbox needs to have a category. If someone wishes to state something about themselves, they should use a a userpage notice, such as a userbox, not a category. - jc37 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The deletion of the 14 sexual identification categories listed above by Allstarecho was endorsed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 10. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 9 =

== [[:Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: UCE Birmingham]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

:Rename to :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Birmingham City University. The university has been renamed - to update to the new title. DWaterson 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, single user category and potential for collaboration is minimal. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment it's only single user because I've already updated the userbox that populates the category to :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Birmingham City University. Which adds two more :P DWaterson 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom; convention of :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 8 =

== Category:SubGenius Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. With a neutral nominator and so few comments in this discussion, I feel that either a stronger consensus or less balanced arguments would be required to tip the balance. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:SubGenius Wikipedians - Brought up below, I think we should revisit this discussion. - jc37 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - staying neutral for now. - jc37 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users who self-identify with a particular set of beliefs. Self-identification with a set of beliefs implies neither an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject nor an above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic content that does not violate the "no original research" policy. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - previous discussion is at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_religion_and_all_subcats]. What has changed since August that justifies reopening these? DenisMoskowitz 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents.
As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see my response at the discussion for Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, being a member of a religion (and a joke one at that) does not foster contribution and typically leads to inherent bias. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a parody of this project. SubGenius is a parody religion and I suspect that there is a strong element of parody in this category as in "They have a Church, we have a ~~parody~~ Church; they have a savior, we have a ~~parody~~ savior; they have a category, we have a ~~parody~~ category." There are only ~~two or three SubGenius-related~~ twelve SubGenius-centric articles (and only a few main ones), they can find each other readily on the talk pages. --Justanother 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just outa curiosity, from where are you quoting? Also: there are eighty-seven SubGenius-related articles. Somewhat more than two. Even somewhat more than three. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am "quoting" a hypothetical statement. The clues that it is a hypothetical are my "I suspect" and "as in". Yes, you are right that there a number of articles that mention SubGenius but that is hardly the main concern of them, e.g. Richard Rosenberg or The Firesign Theatre. However, there are more than two or three majorly related ones, there are maybe twelve, although some of those twelve are of dubious notability, e.g. Jehovah 1 or Dobbstown. But there are twelve and I should have checked before naming a number. --Justanother 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)}}}

== Category:Discordian Wikipedians ==

::Category:Discordian Wikipedians - Brought up below, I think we should revisit this discussion. - jc37 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - staying neutral for now. - jc37 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users who self-identify with a particular set of beliefs. Self-identification with a set of beliefs implies neither an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject nor an above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic content that does not violate the "no original research" policy. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - previous discussion is at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_religion_and_all_subcats]. What has changed since August that justifies reopening these? DenisMoskowitz 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, being a member of a religion does not necessarily foster contribution, Black Falcon puts it best. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents.
As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see my response at the discussion for Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm commenting here, but my comments apply to Category:Subgenius Wikipedians as well. I'd like to assume good faith about the UCFDing of these categories. Can someone help me by letting me know what the reason is to bring these back up after they were protected by a strong consensus decision 2 months ago? I'd hate for it to be "we don't think as many people who disagree with us are paying attention this time." DenisMoskowitz 01:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'strong consensus decision' to which you refer (although I question the accuracy of applying that term to that particular situation) applied to the all-or-nothing discussion concerning all of the religious identification categories. A separate discussion that included this and the Subgenuis category was more mixed (originally deleted, then restored). I can't speak for Jc37, but his nomination statement suggests that the nomination was prompted by someone's recent comment in an alternate discussion. The idea that this is case of 'asking the other parent' is not supported by the evidence, which includes the fact that this was one of several dozen nominations initiated by him in the past several days. The added fact that he merely initiated discussion and chose to remain neutral at the outset is more than adequate confirmation, I think, of the absence of any attempt to game the system. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fair, but if not all religious categories are up, then is there something special about these religions that makes them less worthy of user categories? Both of the presented deletion comments would apply equally to any religious category. I'm concerned that there's a "pick off the easy ones" action occurring, where the earlier decision is overturned in bits. DenisMoskowitz 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In light of the fact that these categories were previously the subject of a deletion nomination separate from the other religious identification categories, I think it's safe to state that there there exists, at least, a perception that these categories are somehow distinct from the others. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
They were nominated as part of the deletion of the supercategory "Psuedoreligious Wikipedians" (yes, the category was misspelled) where they were lumped together with some genuinely fake religions. IIRC the result of that discussion was that at least these two religions didn't belong there anyway. I don't believe they have been nominated individually until now. DenisMoskowitz 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Users with anti-vandal tools]] ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Utterly useless. Dmcdevit·t 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Before I looked at the cat, I was thinking that I can easily see its use, but I wondered if it wouldn't be better served as split into subcats which explain which tools the user(s) utilise rather than just a broad generic cat. If you're having issues with a tool that you're using, I presume that asking someone else who uses the tool might be what you'd like to do. However, seeing now that it's a single user with a single userbox... - jc37 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per my comments above. - jc37 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I just made a userbox and then a userbox category. That's no reason to delete it. Hyper Sonic Boom 23:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's superfluous with :Category:Wikipedians by anti-vandalism program. Maybe you can add that to your userbox instead. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jc37. The userbox should either categorise into one of the subcats of :Category:Wikipedians by anti-vandalism program (not the nominated category, though) or shouldn't categorise at all. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Why are you all protesting to delete it? It's a harmless category - period. Hyper Sonic Boom ^RFA? 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:HARMLESS for the reason your argument may be faulty.--WaltCip 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I did. Just look at all of the other userpage-hosted userboxes with categories - I don't see you trying to delete them, and they don't do good here, either. So before deleting mine, delete theirs. Hyper Sonic Boom ^RFA? 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Some user categories are useful and some aren't; those that aren't will be identified and deleted over time. The existence of other, possibly less useful categories does not justify the continued existence of this one (please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); category cleanup is a constant process and every category is dealt with as it is encountered. More to the point, why do you think this category should remain, when it is effectively a duplicate of :Category:Wikipedians by anti-vandalism program? You've opposed deletion, but haven't really provided a reason why this category is useful. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. The category does not really belong to you or any other individual editor (see Wikipedia:Ownership for details).
It isn't a duplicate. It just identifies the users with my userbox, which means they have an anti-vandal tool. But if you want to delete it so bad, then go ahead and delete the thousands of other user categories, too - they don't do any good here, either. Hyper Sonic Boom ^RFA? 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a category that merely identifies users of a certain userbox. User categories should be formed around certain topics/themes (such as ability to speak a language), not random userboxes. If you want a list of users who use the userbox that you created, you can find it via the whatlinkshere function; just go to the userbox page and click the "what links here" link below the search box. It will show this. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Wikipedians Who Have A Source Code Page]] ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Utterly useless. One member of the category, and apparently someone who doesn't realize that the "source code" is what anyone can see from the edit window. Dmcdevit·t 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I almost wonder if it's a vanity page of some kind. - jc37 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge with :Category:Wikipedians Who Have A User Page -Rocket000 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; probably just a simple misunderstanding. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 7 =

== Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians - 2 member category and both are using the same userbox, so they can obviously find each other. - jc37 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - What is the hurry? The cat is only a few months old. It is helpful for those in minority religions to find fellow members and it contributes to NPOV and countering systemic bias in the articles. --Justanother 13:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, being a member of a religion does not help your contribution (and as we've seen, can actually hurt it). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
:Being a member implies that one has knowledge and insights that non-members do not and that cannot but help the article. It is not the condition of being a member that hurts one's contributions, what hurts is the normal and common humanoid behavior of thinking that one's own opinions and experience constitute the whole of reality when coupled with an aggressive editing attitude. --Justanother 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per discussion of August 2nd. They should All stay or All go. I wouldn't be sad to see them all go away, but it's unfair to single out one for special treatment. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. On one hand, I agree with ProveIt, but on the other, I strongly believe that Wikipedia is better off without any of these, and if it takes cherry-picking them off one by one, so be it. --Kbdank71 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per ^demon and Kbdank71. The "knowledge and insights" to which Justanother refers would almost certainly constitute original research. When it comes to articles, sources (should) matter, not personal viewpoints, interpretations, understandings, and the like. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR? Not necessarily. Would you not say that a physicist might have knowledge and insight of physics that would benefit the articles on physics? As opposed to a layperson? The material is already in RS, the knowledge and insight gives you the ability to know what you are looking at and translate that to a better article. To a non-Scientologist, "raw" Scientology looks like nonsense and gibberish while I can make it understandable to a layperson because I understand it. Not WP:OR, simply word choice. And POV. The POV that it is understandable. If you approach Scientology (or physics) with the preconceived notion that you cannot understand it you will create quite a different article than if you approach it from an understanding viewpoint. Personally, I believe that every article in this encyclopedia should give preference to the POV of understanding as opposed to not understanding. So if that makes me a POV editor then so be it. I understand Scientology; critics of Scientology understand criticism of Scientology - they are different subjects. --Justanother 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I see now to what you were referring. However, here's the thing: whereas we can assume that a physicist has subject-specific knowledge that is relevant to articles on physics, I don't think we can assume the same for adherents of religions. In fact, I don't think that the "profession" and "religion" categories are really comparable. Getting a job requires some knowledge relevant to performing the duties of the position; self-identifying with a religion does not. Keeping a job requires one to have or to learn certain knowledge; continuing to self-identify with a religion does not. Performing the duties associated with a job requires certain knowledge; merely being an adherent of a religion really does not. The fact that there exists :Category:Wikipedians interested in religions for those who have an active interest in editing articles related to religion further convinces me that religious identification categories themselves do not foster collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I echo Black Falcon's sentiments. Being a physicist implies you have knowledge of physics. Being a member of a religion does not. I am agnostic, and yet I know more about Christianity (being raised Southern Baptist, and having an interest in the history of the Catholic Church), than many devout Christians I know. See the problem? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking only for Scientology, the essence of being a Scientologist is studying and using Scientology - "understanding it", if you will. For this reason, a Scientologist is head and shoulders above non-Scientologists when it comes to actually writing about Scientology. Critics of Scientology are most suited to discussing criticism of Scientology. Some here might say that sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. are most qualified to discuss Scientology but they come from their own POV, usually a secular one bordering on materialism and scientism. Theologians are truly most qualified to discuss Scientology from a non-Scientologist viewpoint presuming that they have done the necessary research but that is a very small group indeed and one not likely represented here. In my experience, other religions also stress the value of study, most notably Islam and Judaism. The key point is that, for a member of a religion, the religion has substance and knowledge to be gained. Just as physics has substance and knowledge to be gained. For that reason a category by religious affiliation can be as helpful as a category like Wikipedian engineers. --Justanother 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents.
As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but ultimately disagree with the assumption that adherence to a religion implies an above-average knowledge of the religion and/or related subjects. My point regarding self-identification was not intended to question the truthfulness of self-categorisation, but rather to highlight a difference between 'religion' and 'profession' categories. In order to become an accountant, for instance, one must receive certain training and education; no such prerequisites exist for identifying with a religion. (This assumes, of course, that users self-categorise in accordance with the intent of the category.) A Christian may know more about Christianity than a Muslim, or s/he may not ... it depends on their respective professions, education, and interests; the mere fact of affiliation is secondary. In the end, I think it comes down to a question of whether we're willing to make the assumption evident in the first sentence of your post; it's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is still just that. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I see a subtle difference here. I do not assume that any particular adherent of any particular religion has more knowledge of their religion than the layperson. I have encountered too many people who assert one ideology and exercise another and too many people who identify with an ideology, but do not know enough about it to exercise it. I still expect that people know what they believe.
The same distinction applies to your example as well. I do not assume that any particular worker has more knowledge of their chosen occupational field than the layperson. I have encountered too many overeducated idiots who, in spite of having degrees, still could not understand their jobs. I have encountered too many people who work in a field even though they lack the appropriate certification, or who received their certification through persistence in taking a test until they passed by some fluke rather than having enough understanding to pass the first time. I still expect that people know what they do.
Think of it as the concept behind WP:AGF applied on a more general scope, even though I select a more particular word to describe it. People have a general capacity for error, and a few will fail spectacularly; this must be expected, also. I do not expect perfection, or even sustained excellence. I do not expect sagely wisdom, Doctorate-level education, and master craftsman artistry from everybody. I expect that people know what they are. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedians by mental and physiological condition and subcats ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians by mental condition

::Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition

: - I am sympathetic to those who truly have such disabilities. However, as noted below, a user page notice of some kind (such as a userbox) should be enough to convey that one has such a condition. There is no need for categories grouping such users together. Please comment under the individual nominations below. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on parent cats I would suggest deleting both of these cats, regardless of whether or not any of the child cats survive. After some of the listed cats are deleted (which is likely), they should all be listed under :Category:Wikipedians by condition, which might be more appropriately renamed :Category:Wikipedians by medical condition. Horologium t-c 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete these with fire, along will all subcategories below. We've said it time and again, they do not foster contribution. I have never once seen how people in "Wikipedians who survived cancer" has helped them on Cancer or related articles. I am really sorry for your condition, really, but putting yourself in a category isn't helping Wikipedia. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, CSD C1. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Upmerge both into :Category:Wikipedians by condition, which should later be renamed to :Category:Wikipedians by medical condition, per Horologium. Of course, this assumes that some of the subcategories survive. There's really no reason, in terms of navigation for the purpose of collaboration, that categories for mental and physiological conditions should be kept separate, especially if some of the subcategories are deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)}}} some subcats still under discussion....

Comment. Since all of the subcategories were deleted and any new subcats are likely to be deleted as well, a simple deletion of the nominated categories (and probably their parent) is all that's really needed. Whether this is done with or without prejudice to recreation is another matter, and I personally prefer the former, especially for the "mental" and "physiological" categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

==[[:Category:Users who found Dillio411's secret page]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Users who found Dillio411's secret page}}

Delete, somehow I don't see this as useful, although admittedly the spinning star logo is fun to watch. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This Category is realy just for me to give people a Special barnstar so they dont have to sign the gustbook. this is just for me to see not you or any one. --Dillio411 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Speedy Delete per above comment.--WaltCip 10:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Vanity category. "this is just for me to see not you or any one." - This is not what the category system is for. And "Whatlinkshere" should serve your purposes just as well. - jc37 23:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
delete Category serves no useful purpose except to keep track of someone's records. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ what the pont of deleting it no one's going to see it--Dillio411 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Because that defeats the purpose of having a category. And no more than one !vote per person, please.--WaltCip 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete While I certainly advocate fun and games while doing serious work (and indeed, I think that fun improves productivity), this category does nothing to improve Wikipedia, and while it may be a convenience for Dillio, categories are used to improve and help the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be for personal use. Ariel♥Gold 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 5 =

== Category:Wikipedians studying in German Swiss International School ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians studying in German Swiss International School}}

This is a category for students of the German Swiss International School, a K-13 school in Hong Kong.

Delete per the precedent set by the Aug 30 discussion for all "high school" user categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian Punjab cricket team fans ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian Punjab cricket team fans}}

This is a category for fans of the Punjab cricket team. Despite being originally created in March 2006 (see Special:Undelete/Category:Users who support the Punjab cricket team), the category still contains only two user subpages (which are either editing tests or userpage archives) of a single user who has been effectively inactive since March 2007, when the user retired. For these reasons alone, and putting aside the issue of the relative worth of 'sports fans' categories, this category does not foster collaboration; there's no reason to preserve a category that contains only the user subpages of a retired user.

Delete (1st choice) or merge into :Category:Wikipedian domestic cricket fans (2nd choice) as nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 17:53, October 5, 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians taking a Wikibreak ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians taking a Wikibreak}}

The knowledge that a particular user is taking a wikibreak can be useful; a list of all Wikipedians who are on wikibreak (or, rather, those who use the template) is not, except perhaps to someone trying to choose an account to hack. I can't think of any valid reason that someone would need or want to seek out users who are temporarily inactive.

Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. I honestly hadn't thought about it, but that makes sense, I suppose. - jc37 07:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no cat needed, userbox w/o category would be useful Mikebar 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian philologists ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Wikipedian philologists to :Category:Wikipedians interested in philology

:Nominator's rationale: The userbox which populates this category reads: "This user is interested in philology." Therefore, the category title should conform to the convention of :Category:Wikipedians by interest, rather than of :Category:Wikipedians by profession. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a single user category. If no consensus to delete, rename per nom. - jc37 07:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian paramilitary people ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Wikipedian paramilitary people into :Category:Wikipedians in the Civil Air Patrol

:Nominator's rationale: When I first saw this category for Wikipedian paramilitary people, I thought it would include members of groups such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, and the like. As it turns out, however, all of the users and userboxes in this category are affiliated with the US Civil Air Patrol; in fact, all of the userpages in the category either also appear in the CAP category, sport a userbox proclaiming an affiliation to the CAP, or both. To avoid confusion and duplication, and to promote specificity, I propose that these categories be merged. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. And I think someone needs to learn how to add options to a template - there are more userboxes than members of the cat, and they're all essentially the same, but for some minor text changes. - jc37 07:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian pastry chefs ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian pastry chefs}}

Despite being originally created in January 2006 (see Special:Undelete/Category:Pastry Chef Wikipedians), this category still contains only one user, whose userpage identifies him as "an aspiring pastry chef" (emphasis added). Moreover, the user has been effectively inactive since May 2006 (having made only two edits since then). Also, I think that the scope of this category is too narrow to adequately foster encyclopedic collaboration in a way that does not constitute original research.

Delete (1st choice) or merge into :Category:Wikipedian chefs (2nd choice) as nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - jc37 07:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 4 =

== Category:WikiProject Chemistry participants ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} egrem. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:Category:WikiProject Chemistry participants to :Category:WikiProject Chemistry members (or vice versa; both tagged)

I know we can't come to conclusion on members vs. participants, but we can't have BOTH of these, can we?--Mike Selinker 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge per jc37 ~~"participants" (13 members) into "members" (73 members). I think that can be considered indicative of the general leaning of the WikiProject regarding this issue.~~ Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge "members" into "participants". Two reasons: 1.) "Membership" as opposed to "participation" was one of the downfalls of Esperanza. 2.) It's obvious by the fact that the "members" cat has them all categorised under "U" that this is a userbox. Compare to partcipants... - jc37 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== More WikiProject participants ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename as per revised nom with 2 deletions. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-closing, I am also modifying :Category:WikiProject Armenia Wikipedians per this direction.--Mike Selinker 04:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:Category:WikiProject Turkey Wikipedians to :Category:WikiProject Turkey participants
:Category:Wikiproject U.S. Congress Wikipedians to :Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress participants
:Category:WikiProject Azeri to :Category:WikiProject Azerbaijan participants
:Category:Members of WikiProject Mammals to :Category:WikiProject Mammals members
:Category:WikiProject Musical Instruments honoured guests to :Category:WikiProject Musical Instruments participants (or delete)
:Category:WikiProject Probability Users to :Category:WikiProject Probability participants
:Category:Russian History WikiProject members to :Category:WikiProject Russian History members
:Category:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Userbox to :Category:WikiProject Scottish Islands participants
~~:Category:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization to :Category:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization members~~ (created new category for members; used previous category for project pages)
:Category:Unreferenced article patrollers to :Category:Wikipedian unreferenced article patrollers
:Category:Article Rescue Squadron members to :Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron
:Category:User KIS to ~~:Category:WikiProject Keep It Simple participants~~ :Category:Wikipedians with Keep It Simple layouts (updated below)
~~:Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer Friends to :Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer participants~~ (already taken care of)
:Category:Members of the (unoffical) WCS Wikiproject to :Category:WikiProject Worcester Central School members
:Category:Romani WikiProject members to :Category:WikiProject Romani members
:Category:WikiProject Guitarists Participants to :Category:WikiProject Guitarists participants
:Category:Participants in WikiProject Nebraska to :Category:WikiProject Nebraska participants
:Category:Participants in WikiProject Iowa to :Category:WikiProject Iowa participants
:Category:Participants in WikiProject Protected areas of India to :Category:WikiProject Protected areas of India participants
:Category:Members of the Lego Wikiproject to :Category:WikiProject Lego members
:Category:Members of WikiProject Tenacious D to :Category:WikiProject Tenacious D participants
:Category:Members of WikiProject Birds to :Category:WikiProject Birds members
:Category:WikiProject Kurdistan Wikipedians to :Category:WikiProject Kurdistan participants
UPDATE: Several more added. (Also, I've been manually repairing those that just need capitalization correction to some part of their name, when only one template needs changing.)--Mike Selinker 06:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

These all should be formatted to the standard groupings (WikiProject in front, members or participants in the back, with no preference for which). I'm not in favor of categories for people who like the projects without participating in them, so I could support either merging or deleting those.--Mike Selinker 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename with a preference for "members" over "participants" in all cases ("participant" implies a level of activity which may not exist), except for the following:
~~Keep :Category:Article Rescue Squadron members, which corresponds to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron; there is no such thing as Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron.~~
Delete :Category:WikiProject Musical Instruments honoured guests; if kept, rename.
Delete :Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer Friends; it's a "friends of..." category; if kept, merge.
Keep :Category:Unreferenced article patrollers, which corresponds to Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles; there is no such thing as Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced article patrol. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
For the two you recommend keeping, should they not go under :Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, and if not, where should they go?--Mike Selinker 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think those two should be moved into :Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration, since they are not WikiProjects per se (especially the "Unreferenced article" page). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I've recategorized those two into that category, and redid the suggested rename to match that category. (By the way, "members" is just fine with me.)--Mike Selinker 18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree with your revisions and the new proposed names. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename all per nom except Delete the two BF pointed out. These two are another casualty of using "members" in the category names. Let's worry more about getting people to collaborate, and less about who's "included" in the membership. And again, I prefer participants over members. - jc37 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:The more I think about those two cats, and the concept of "membership", the more I want to say "burn with fire" (With apologies to User:^demon : ) - jc37 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Some updates. Based on comments left on my page and here, I'm changing my opinion on a couple of categories. I now support deletion of the Timeline Tracer category, as it creates the spectre of having heirarchical distinctions between non-admin editors, which seems antithetical to the concept of a project. However, my nomination for :Category:User KIS needs to change. I would say it's better as :Category:Wikipedians with simple layouts, along the lines of :Category:Wikipedians with pictures.--Mike Selinker 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:Comment :Category:Wikipedians with simple layouts may refer to any simple layout not KeepItSimple labels which are specific for diminishing clutter in user pages. :Category:Wikipedians using WP:KISimple layouts should be correct ℒibrarian2 13:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::I made it :Category:Wikipedians with Keep It Simple layouts for clarification's sake. No opinion whether the category should stay or go.--Mike Selinker 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:I cannot resist the need to comment on this passage above: "It creates the spectre of having heirarchical distinctions between non-admin editors, which seems antithetical to the concept of a project". It seems that a call to ethics could be applied to the author who is providing a clear unethical division between non-admin editors and the other editors, highly distastefull ☤'ProfBrumby 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I understood your comment, could you clarify? - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Comments on the "User KIS" nomination ===

Comment This is not a category for participants, WP:Keep It Simple has no members as such. This category is for Wikipedians who choose to use KIS Labels instead of userboxes ℒibrarian2 11:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
ErrorThe category indicates who uses those labels not membership. It is thought to be used, if some main change is done to the KIS labels, for checking that everyone using the KIS labels is updated Heltzen ◩ 11:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - If this is just a "users by how they choose to format their userboxes (or lack thereof)" then this should go. (Compare to the idea of having a category: "Wikipedians who use userboxtop to display their userboxes", or even "Wikipedians who choose to use userboxes".) As an aside, I would presume that "Whatlinkshere" would be more appropriate for this? - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to :Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user page.--Mike Selinker 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename "Category:Wikipedians with Keep It Simple layouts" as proposed now seems a good rename ℒibrarian2 12:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename to :Category:Wikipedians with Keep It Simple layouts Heltzen ◩ 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Comments on the "Timeline Tracer" nomination ===

Keep This is not a "participants" category, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer/Participants This is a category for those who don't have the time for full participation but want to help with small tasks. Don't see anything against policy in preserving the name Daoken 10:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe category is for editors who help with minor tasks in the project. There are two categories of participants, those who actively participate and those who choose to participate with minor tasks, the need to separate them is for knowing to whom to assign an specific task when needed. Daoken 12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete by author This category is obsolete, new internal listing of members by level has been implemented Daoken 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - There is no such thing as a "minor" task. It's a matter of helping out, or not. See my comments under the main nom for more on this. - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This has been deleted per the author's request.--Mike Selinker 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians by Pidgins and Creoles ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. No prejudice against creation of a proper single ethnic/nationality category. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians by Pidgins and Creoles

::Category:Wikipedians by Spanish-based Creole languages

::Category:Chabacano Wikipedians

::Category:Chavacano Wikipedians

:Each one a subcat of the previous one. The last two are single user cats (the same user). 4 cats for one Wikipedian? - jc37 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. The appropriate category for speakers of the Chavacano language is :Category:User cbk ("cbk" is the ISO 639-3 code for the language). Since the single user in these four categories is already present in :Category:User cbk, there is no need to do anything but delete the four categories above. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Move one, delete others I actually discussed this with the creator of the categories some time back. What it appeared he was attempting to do was create an ethnicity category (improperly, inside the language categories). I had actually forgotten that discussion until now. I'd suggest identifying one of the Chavacano/Chabacano cats as a target, and moving it to :Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, and then deleting the other and the rest of the pidgins and creoles tree. Horologium t-c 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have an article for "Chavacano" as an ethnicity? Both Chavacano and Chabacano redirect to Chavacano language, and Chavacano people, Chavacano (people), Chavacano (ethnicity), Chavacano (ethnic group), Chabacano people, Chabacano (people), Chabacano (ethnicity), and Chabacano (ethnic group) are redlinks. My impression is that this is more of a linguistic group than an ethnic or national group, in which case I don't think a rename and move is necessary. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumptions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum and subcats ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum

::Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome

::Category:Wikipedians with High Functioning Autism

::Category:Wikipedians with PDD-NOS

:Another case where a userbox notice may be helpful, but a category is not.

Delete - as nominator. ~~If no concensus to delete, Merge all to :Wikipedians with autism spectrum disorders.~~ - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge All as per nom. I oppose deleting the whole tree, because there is a use for these categories; as pointed out at one of the many UCFD discussions for this category (at least three since April 2007), it was noted that when dealing with autistic editors, it may be helpful to solicit assistance from another autistic editor. This was done when dealing with a somewhat disruptive editor who was focussed on Lord & Taylor. However, I don't think it is necessary to overcategorize with all of the listed subcats. Failing a merge, I would suggest deleting the PDD-NOS cat and the high-functioning cat; the latter is ill-defined, and the former is a catchall for any condition that does not have a specific DSM-IV code, which makes it a poor candidate for categorization as there is little collaborative potential. Horologium t-c 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale below. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge all per Jc37/Horologium, selectively delete HFA and PDD-NOS per Horologium, or delete all per Jc37/^demon. I know that this comment doesn't provide much clarification for the closing admin; it's sole purpose is to argue against the status quo. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I disagree with consolidating the Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and high-functioning autism categories. Although related, these are all distinct conditions, and each has its own degree of effect upon a person — people with PDD-NOS will be very different from those with HFA. I think, at the very least, the Asperger's category should be kept, as this seems to be the best-defined and widest band on the autism spectrum. -Severa (!!!) 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:Ok, so you oppose merging, and you support keeping Asperger's? - jc37 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::If it came down to it, I would only oppose merging the Asperger's category into the parent autism spectrum category, but not the PDD-NOS or high-functioning autism categories. -Severa (!!!) 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|jc37 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)}}}

Delete all and do not merge per nom. Carbon Monoxide 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

{{strikediv|1=

Keep per Severa. There are differences between the autism spectrum disorders, and there are certain times where another editor in the same category may be needed.

:For example, knowing that an editor who is editing an article has Asperger's (rather than another ASD) and there is some dispute with the edits, another editor with Asperger's would probably be helpful in helping with a resolution since they are more likely to use literal language, have a better understanding of the other editor (e.g. probably doesn't do to well with criticism or easily mistakes when someone is or isn't being critical), and that quoting relevant Wikipedia guidelines/rules/etc would help as those with AS tend to follow them religiously - although may be slightly overlooked if the article is something they are highly foccused at editing. I know this is just an example, but since both editors have added themselves to that category, Wikipedia is likely something they are both heavily interested in, even though they probably concentrate their editing in different areas.

:The same can be said of the other categories.

:Is there a distinction between HFA and Asperger's? That hasn't been clarified yet, however not everyone with Asperger's would be classed as having HFA - since not everyone with Asperger's have an average/above-average intellect (although it is typical). Also, the HFA article makes no mention of whether there is a link between HFA and genetics (whereas the AS one does).

:Those that are elsewhere on the autism spectrum probably don't share these similarities and "shared qualities".

:Those with PDD-NOS do not share as many similarites as those that can easily be classified by one definition. They may share similarites with autism, rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, asperger syndrome (or a combination of characteristics from one or more groups including neuro-typical). If an editor with autism and another with asperger's were to have trouble reaching agreement, the person with asperger's would probably give in to the person with autism. If someone with PDD-NOS were to get involved - and are PDD-NOS because they not only have similarties to autism but have similarites to asperger's too - there would be a higher chance of reaching agreement between the two editors).

:And yes, I know the examples have all been about conflict/dispute resoloution, but it was just one example of how keeping these categories would be worthwhile - I could have used collaboration between editors as a different example. }}—TheJC (Talk • Contribs • [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=TheJC Count]) 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::You know, the idea that users would require others of their medical condition in order to be able to communicate... It just sounds like the classic: Unless you grew up in my generation, you wouldn't understand how I talk; Unless you grew up in the projects you wouldn't understand; If I'm reading your comments correctly, what we're talking about is a written style of prose. And I would guess that every single one of the many million of users who edit Wikipedia have a different style of prose. This walks a rather fine line of WP:AGF. (And for that matter Assume the presence of a belly-button.) - jc37 13:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Ignore my comment then. I rarely edit wikipedia anymore because I can't tell when someone is making a personal attack against me (as they assume bad faith) and because I'm not able to read between the lines, and I can only go by how your comment reads to me. I think this is why I stopped getting involved in these discussions. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=TheJC Count]) 14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure how to read that, but if you in any way feel or felt that I was making any sort of personal attack against you, you have my heartfelt apologies. You are, of course, welcome to comment in these discussions. My comments directly above were about the idea being put forth, not about the person offering the perspective. As I was saying, it walks a ratherfine line, and makes me concerned about questions of presuming good faith of our editors. I wasn't suggesting that you weren't. So again, my apologies, for any confusion that may have caused. - jc37 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian college seniors ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedian college seniors}}

Categorisation on the basis of year of study does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. In addition, and despite having existed for 20 months, the category contains only one member. Since the single user joined the category in May 2006 (and, thus, may no longer be a senior), I think deletion is preferable to merging in this case.

Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - single user cat. - jc37 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, which I'm sure comes as a shock to many, or possibly Merge with :Category:Wikipedian college students - The one user in that category claims membership on a separate userboxes page under the heading Irrelevant userboxes. However, I also note that the userbox in question was copied from the original before it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_col-4&oldid=142124845&diff=prev modified] to remove reference to the category. In spite of that, I tend to agree with the assertion that the category has questionable merit, especially in light of the fact that the condition of being a senior only lasts for one year, and that the condition of being a senior does not provide a significantly different perspective beyond being a college student of any other undergraduate level. So, either merge with :Category:Wikipedian college students and fix the userbox, or delete it altogether. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 10:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge or Delete per above Mikebar 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian commercial airline pilots ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete as empty, no prejudice against recreation. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Wikipedian commercial airline pilots into :Category:Wikipedian commercial pilots

:Nominator's rationale: The two comments at Category talk:Wikipedian commercial airline pilots suggest that this should not be a separate category, largely because the category "incorrectly assumes that a commercial pilot is an airline pilot". Indeed, the userbox that populates this category (User:Luke119/userbox/instcommpilot) says nothing about being an airline pilot. On the whole, this 2-user userbox-populated category seems to have little potential for growth and little need to exist separately from its parent (which also includes just two users). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Actually there is a difference. The technology involved, and what such pilots actually do. While I understand the hesitance to keep a couple 2-member categories, the rareness of the profession would seem to offset the small size of the categories. - jc37 06:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) There is a difference between "commercial airline pilots" and "commercial pilots" (although the former is a subset of the latter), but my reason for suggesting the merge is not the small # of users in the category. Rather, it's the fact that there is no indication that the users in this category are actually commercial airline pilots; the userbox that categorises them into the category only says that they're certified commercial pilots. It's my opinion (and the opinion of the two users who commented on the category's talk page) that this category was created in error. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the difference I was missing (and apparently missed back in the previous discussion as well) was that the userbox says "aircraft" and not "airline". I was bold and edited the userbox. Feel free to speedy delete this airline cat as empty, with no prejudice for it's proper recreation later. - jc37 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:Merge I say merge, I think have commercial pilots is simpler than airline. Also this name will be able to include all commercial pilots which in my opinion simplifies things greatly. --bobsmith319 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong KeepGentlemen (and ladies of course) I don't know if you are aware that a commercial pilot is not the same as an airline pilot, both hold different FAA airman certificates, licenses and qualifications. Airline pilots are those holding an ATL (Airline Transport License) while commercial pilots hold a CPL (Commercial Pilot License) the two categories are not one and the same. TopTopView 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, I think we are. What you may not be aware of is that those in the category are there due to a userbox which says commercial "aircraft" not "airline". (I made the same mistake myself previously.) So, as it turns out this nom was essentially discussing editing a userbox. My apologies for any confusion. - jc37 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::Oh I see. The easiest way to solve it and to avoid an array of mini-categories will be to put all pilots userboxes under :Category:Wikipedian pilots will it not? We are all pilots and no one will feel de-categorized. To be pilot is common to all license categories.TopTopView 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Delete to :Category:Wikipedian commercial pilots. - (Just realised I had not clarified.) - jc37 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who play role-playing games ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who play role-playing games - See Role-playing game - Vague inclusion criteria, since the RPGs could be Paper and pencil games, or video games. See also: :Category:Wikipedians who play pen-and-paper games and :Category:Wikipedians interested in video games. - jc37 05:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Upmerging is not necessary since the subcategories are already othwerise categorised. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all categories listed in this nom. None of them promote collaboration. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians by access to sources ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians by access to sources

::Category:Wikipedians with access to academic journals - 4 members

::Category:Wikipedians with access to conference proceedings - 1 member

::Category:Wikipedians with access to university intranet sites - 2 members

::Category:Wikipedians with access to university libraries - 13 members

:Essentially any college student could claim membership in these categories per the local university library. As could anyone with a decent library in their neighborhood. It also occurs to me that anyone with internet access has access to all of these, and since you need internet access to edit Wikipedia, these just became potentially all-inclusive categories. - jc37 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as nominator. - jc37 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Despite the fact that this type of category is focused directly toward fostering collaboration, I have to agree that they have limited utility. (1) Anyone living near a university can have access to a university library (membership can generally be purchased by persons who are not affiliated with the university) and possibly to intranet sites as well. Certainly these categories include every university student, professor, and staff member with access to a computer. (2) Knowing that someone has access to academic journals is not particularly useful unless one knows to what journals they have access; also, Google Scholar provides a limited degree of access to academic journals to anyone with an internet connection. (3) Categorisation on the basis of access to conference proceedings is simply too broad; there are tens of thousands of local and international conferences across dozens of subjects. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete. I wish these had more potential, as the "Access to sources" categories are one of the few great uses of user categories. Sadly, these aren't helpful. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Deaf Culture Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Deaf Culture Wikipedians - While a userpage notice may be useful, the category grouping is not needed. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf and :Category:WikiProject Deaf participants. - jc37 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37
Delete per nom. The existence of :Category:WikiProject Deaf participants largely makes this one redundant; any collaborative potential that the nominated category has is likely captured by the WikiProject's category. Also, 40% of the users in the nominated category appear in the WikiProject category, so there is a significant degree of overlap. Finally, according to the article Deaf culture, Deaf Culture does "not automatically include all those who are clinically or legally deaf, nor do they exclude every hearing person". Thus, User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User Deaf and Template:UserDeaf, which simply state "This user is deaf", should not categorise into this category. Removing these userboxes would leave only 4 actual users in the category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Black Falcon. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Sexuality and gender identification ==

{{delrevxfd|date=2024 January 6|page=Category:Queer Wikipedians}}

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all based on strength of arguments. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Asexual Wikipedians

::Category:Pansexual Wikipedians

::Category:Polyamorous Wikipedians

::Category:Bisexual Wikipedians

::Category:Homoflexible Wikipedians

::Category:Heteroflexible Wikipedians

::Category:Femme Wikipedians

::Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians

::Category:Gay Wikipedians

::Category:Bear cub Wikipedians

::Category:Lesbian Wikipedians

::Category:Queer Wikipedians

::Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians

::Category:Transsexual Wikipedians

:While a userpage notice may be useful, it's not necessary to have a category identifying who the user prefers to have sex with (if any), or what gender a person prefers to identify with (if any). This would also include Heterosexual Wikipedians, Celibate Wikipedians, and various Paraphilial Wikipedian cats, if they existed. - jc37 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as nominator. - jc37 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep for crying out loud. These categories have been up for deletion and kept every time, see Category talk:Gay Wikipedians for links to three failed CfDs for that category alone. I won't go into detail why this CfD is misguided, but I think it should be closed immediately on precedent alone. TAnthony 05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:I did, I have. (One of those was a suggestion to merge/rename all to Homosexual Wikipedians, so it's somewhat off-topic. You may also wish to note that several categories which were "Keep" comparisons in those discussions, such as Wikipedians by Marital status, no longer exist either.) The shortest response is that Consensus can change. There is an ongoing current consensus that categories which are merely self-identification notices should not exist as categories. A userpage notice, such as a userbox, is enough to state whatever it is someone may wish to identify with. If someone wishes to help out with collaborating on LGBT issue articles, they can always check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. - jc37 06:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, all of you deletionists can certainly nominate something enough times that the defenders finally get sick of defending, and "consensus can change" because it's too much trouble to rehash the same arguments. I am constantly baffled by the energy that goes into gutting things which some people find helpful or motivational, when your time could be better spent ACTUALLY EDITING AN ARTICLE. Seriously, what do you all actually care that editors are grouping themselves arbitrarily in userspace, why don't you just eliminate all userboxes and user categories and be done with it? If :Category:Wikipedians in the United States is allowed to exist, these should as well. The fact that hundreds of editors have placed themselves in a category like Gay Wikipedians should state clearly that it is valuable. And I don't mean to single you out jc37, but for example you are in :Category:Wikipedians who participate in the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week, which is completely ridiculous by comparison. Give me a break, people! TAnthony 08:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

:::(Please pardon me if I ignore the histrionics in answering.) The only person on this page so far who has shown actually collaboration of User categories is Horologium (though in a different discussion). I can actually give a concrete example of how User categories are not collaborative in nature (besides the problems of votestacking). Awhile back, the User categories for the individual signs of the zodiac were deleted. The initial result of the discussion was merge to "Wikipedians interested in the zodiac". So another admin started making the change. There was a rather large hullaballoo from users who were angry that they were being placed in a collaborative cat, since they had no interest in the subject whatsoever, but were merely declaring something about themselves. So we actually went back to the discussion, and closed it as delete all, instead, since the users in question didn't want to be "interested in" or "collaborative about" the topic. And this involved quite a few "hundreds of users". By the way, "hundreds of users" is roughly equal to people who placed a userbox on their userpage to self-identify. Or for that matter placed the category on their page to use the link at the bottom of their userpage as a notice as well. If you want a notice, place a notice. Please don't use the category system for it. Oh, and incidentally, how can you suggest that a category which groups people by actual collaboration doesn't help with editing the encyclopedia? I think it's rather similar to the one I have about editor assistance (or administrator, for that matter). - jc37 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Delete. I'm baffled why we must go through this every single time. There has been no evidence presented that shows these categories help collaboration. The LGBT Studies WikiProject does a very good job at coordinating efforts on these subjects, and these categories are only serving a social networking purpose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per demon and jc. I agree strongly with the statement If someone wishes to help out with collaborating on LGBT issue articles, they can always check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. --Kbdank71 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: WP:LGBT doesn't cover nearly all of those, and self-identification helps editors find other editors. A simple user-page notice can't accomplish that. And there's no evidence that having the categories hurts collaboration at all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:*So you're saying it's harmless? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

::*This had nothing to do with the nom, but rather is a more general response, but since you ask, yes, I've seen many instances where User categories have been used to hurt collaboration. Many, many, many attempts to votestack a discussion, for example. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more ways in which categories may be used (both good and bad uses). - jc37 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete delete delete per nom and kbdank71. Carbon Monoxide 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Comment Without going into the relative worth of these cats, I would suggest to the members of the LGBT WikiProject that you create a user category for members of the project. (This is one time where adding the category to the userbox is a good idea.) The deletion of such a category cannot be justified, and it appears that it is the only way that any of the groups under :Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle will be able to group. All of the current subcategories of that group have been nominated for deletion at least twice (most of them three times) in the five months I have been active in UCfD discussions. I am not accusing anyone of bad faith, but the frequency that these categories (includes the Demoscener and Deaf Culture cats, and the Furry cat, which did not get nominated this cycle) are seen here in the discussion queue is a bit disturbing. Consensus can change, but not THAT quickly, and the past discussions have been fairly clear decisions to retain. I would suggest that the demoscener, deaf culture, and furry editors create WikiProjects and user cats for them as well, since the siege on the subcats of :Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle appears to be unresolvable. Horologium t-c 23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, with one caveat: any WikiProject categories should be populated naturally (i.e. by people adding themselves to the category) rather by renaming any of these categories, the reason being that identification doesn't necessarily translate into interest, and certainly not into WikiProject membership. I realise that this isn't what you suggested, but I think it's an important point to note. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Adding other people to a category is inappropriate. However, having a WikiProject userbox on one's page seems to be a pretty clear indicator that the user wants others to know about his interest in the topic, and while not all WikiProjects have categories, many do, and unless the project itself is deleted, there is no justification to eliminate the user cat for its members. The LGBT and Furry projects have userboxes, without associated user cats. The Deaf Wikiproject is related to Deaf Culture, but not identical in scope. (Perhaps Deaf Culture could be a task force within that project, or a daughter project.) I am not aware of a Demoscene Wikiproject at this time. Horologium t-c 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - (Responding to Horologium's first post.) As someone above mentioned, you might wish to go back and read over those discussions. If someone were to assess those discussions now, based on the categories we have now, they all would seem to be at least no consensus, and two of them appear to be rather clear deletes. However, none of that is why I nominated these. As I mentioned above, there is an emerging consensus at WP:CFD that using categories as a "notice" on the bottom of articles is a bad thing(tm). Categories are groupings. In general, if you want to note something about the topic of the article, add it to the article. Well a similar consensus has been emerging about User categories as of late. Statements of self-Identification should not be turned into categories. Look to the removal of the Wikipedians by birth, marital status, and so on. And incidentally, several of the sexuality cats have already been deleted, including Wikipedians by sexuality itself. So I don't think that it's safe to say that there has been an overall consensus to "keep". Anyway, as for Furry, I didn't nominate that one because after reading mountains of text of discussions, I just am not sure what recourse of those suggested is best. I was already leaning towards the WikiProject route myself. In response to the discussion above, the result of this discussion should have no bearing on whether a WikiProject-named cat may be added to a WikiProject userbox or not. So Be bold : ) - jc37 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. A category for members of WP:LGBT would be sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. LGBT-related articles already run a high risk of become battlegrounds for identity politics. Think about what reasons someone might have to look through something like :Category:Lesbian Wikipedians. Either it's for idle curiosity or social networking purposes, in which case the category is frivolous, or it's looking for people likely to share a particular POV (because membership in these categories is based on a highly politicized identity, not an area of expertise). My userpage used to be in at least one of these categories, but I removed it quite a while ago because I just couldn't see what purpose it served. Wikipedia is not about me expressing my identity. It is about writing an encyclopedia. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and can we please have a moratorium on doing this every couple of months?! Yeah, sure, consensus can change, but it's getting real annoying to see this keep coming up over and over for CfD until people get it deleted out of sheer out-stubborning everyone else. And, btw, next time you do it, can you make sure the links in the categories actually link to the deletion discussion in question? Kolindigo 00:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The claim that this category is redundant to the list of participants in WikiProject LGBT studies is inaccurate; not all of the WikiProject editors are gay, and not all gay Wikipedians participate in the WikiProject. Many of these categories serve the purpose user categories are intended for - to help likeminded Wikipedians who may share similar editing interests find one another easily and to reveal any editing biases they may bring to their work. There are a few on the list that I would support deleting because they don't seem to me to serve that purpose: ::Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians, :Category:Femme Wikipedians, and :Category:Bear cub Wikipedians. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:"to help likeminded Wikipedians who may share similar editing interests find one another easily and to reveal any editing biases they may bring to their work." - In other words, a userpage notice... - jc37 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::*Now I'm confused. Are you saying that isn't what user categories are for? If it isn't, then what are they for? And how would you use a userpage notice to find likeminded users, unless you just happened upon their userpages? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per AdelaMae. If I were to question whether my own editing of an article were biased against one of these groups then I would probably ask someone that is in one of these categories for their input. As to the nomination rationale, I am in the Gay Wikipedian's category and that has nothing to do with who I prefer to have sex with or who I identify with (I do not identify with the gay community). If there was a Celebate Wikipedian's category then I could be under that category too (however I see no reason for a creation of that category, don't see why another editor would want to find a celebate editor, and probably wouldn't even include myself in that category as I wouldn't see it having any useful purpose). I'm leaning towards delete since the only time I'd want to find someone in one of these categories would be for input on editing something related to them. Since articles related to these categories would come under the scope of the LGBT Studies WikiProject (with the exception of Asexual Wikipedians), then a user category for members of that wikiproject should suffice. Using my own rationale for commenting delete, I probably shouldn't be in the Gay Wikipedians category as I have no interest in editing articles in that area. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=TheJC Count]) 13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Besides the numerous other attempts at deletion, and failure of said attempts, it's only reasonable to assume that if these were deleted then every cat InsertYourOwnTitle Wikipedians would/should be deleted as well. I always find it amazing how the gay articles/cats/templates/lists always get targeted with the same arguments. You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - (Rather than to respond to each thread, I'll just attempt to comment here.) - In reading the above comments, I'm dismayed by how many commenters apparently aren't reading the nomination, or the responses. Reading things like "You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again." tells me that they haven't bothered to do the research to note the difference in the nominations or that several such categories have already been deleted, including the parent cat :Category:Wikipedians by sexuality. This nom is due to a changing consensus about user categories in general. Wikipedian categories should not be used as userpage notices. And saying ILIKEIT doesn't seem helpful. Suggesting that the categories be used to find "like-minded individuals", is a suggestion to stack a bias. Notifying others that a user has a certain bias is fine as a userpage notice (such as a userbox). I wonder if I had made this nom to be: "Merge all to :Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on sexuality and gender-related issues", would the members of the categories be upset because they weren't interested in collaborating, but wishing to state their preference... I know I'm repeating myself here, but apparently commenters aren't even bothering to read this discussion either. - jc37 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't care. I personally have never been interested in displaying my sexuality on my userpage, but if others wish to disclose theirs that's fine with me. I am thus rather ambivalent about whether these categories remain, though I would like to make two points that: a) these categories were how we recruited many of the members for WP:LGBT in the first place and b)many of the people in these categories were not interested in joining us. To claim therefore that a WP:LGBT userbox is sufficient is demonstrably false. Essjay was gay but never joined WP:LGBT, many others are the same.

:What I am bothered by is the fact that these categories are being put up for deletion every few months, and it seems to me both quite strange and a complete waste of time that people are so insistently trying to destroy these categories. Sure they make claims of "consensus can change" but we're talking over a period of a year or so here. These cats have been Afded four times within a year, and consensus has been no different every time. If the cats survive, I would appreciate if the deletionists could stop their assault for at least year before attempting it again, it's starting to get very annoying and distracts us from our goal - building an encyclopedia free to all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

::"consensus has been no different every time" - I don't believe that that is true. And there have been more than 4, it's just that some of the others resulted in something besides "no consensus/keep". And finally, I won't speak for anyone else, but I always find it amazing when it's suggested that I'm a "deletionist". : ) - jc37 01:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - fosters collaboration, meets criteria for categories. Let's not go deleting cats based on bias. Mikebar 14:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:"...based on bias." - Did you even read the nomination? This has nothing to do with bias. This has nothing to do with whether the notice is useful, but whether the grouping is useful. Whether the grouping accurately shows people who wish to collaborate, or if it's just about having a talk page notice, and that feeling of warm fuzziness of being in a category, grouped with others. If it's the latter (similar to the zodiac cats) then these should absolutely be deleted. This is no different than the deletion of the food categories awhile back. Though several of us may like apples, that doesn't mean that a category is necessary to show it (even though there are more than enough related articles to presume collaborative use). This is about the intent of the categories in question. - jc37 16:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were bisexual and proud of it, like me, you'd understand why we use that category.

-Dpm12-July 18, 2009 8:09 PM.

== Category:Demoscener Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Demoscener Wikipedians - See Demoscene - While interesting, and a userpage notice may be helpful, the category grouping isn't needed. - jc37 02:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Nudist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Nudist Wikipedians - See Nudism (which apparently redirects to Naturism) - While a userpage notice may be helpful (though I'm not certain how), the category isn't needed. - jc37 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Being a nudist does not help foster collaboration at all. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations - 2 members who both have the populating userbox, so I presume they can find each other. - jc37 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I don't see 'by organisation' categories as being particularly useful in the first place, since the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. However, in this case, the organisation(s) is/are not even specified. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Users in the US Millitary ==

This is a bit complicated of a decision, but I tried to maintain the following principles in my decision: 1) Categories are currently present tense and per Black Falcon, they should not switch to past tense. 2) Per jc37 this is much like a profession and so former service is still worthy of categorization. With that in mind....

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}}

rename :Category:Users in the US Millitary and :Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. military,
rename :Category:Wikipedians who served in the US military to :Category:Wikipedians who served in the U.S. military,
rename :Category:Wikipedians in the United States Coast Guard to :Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. Coast Guard
keep :Category:Wikipedian military people. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

----

:Merge/Rename both :Category:Users in the US Millitary and :Category:Wikipedians who served in the US military to :Category:Wikipedians who served in the U.S. military

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians in the United States Coast Guard to :Category:Wikipedians who served in the U.S. Coast Guard

:Rename :Category:Wikipedian military people to :Category:Wikipedians who served in the military

: "who served in" is more accurate to the inclusion criteria. I used U.S. per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations). (The talk page of which provided me with [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chapter_txt-9.html this link to the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (See p.164)].) I have no preference between using "military" or "armed forces". I used military since it's what is currently in use.

::Category:Wikipedian military people's inclusion criteria suggests that it's currently essentially a too-broad "interested in" category, even though the name is more suggestive of those who served in the military. It will need pruning, though I would not oppose deletion in order to "start over".

:See also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch as a reference for usage of all of the above. - jc37 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Rename as nominator. - jc37 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Rename per nom. - Personally I would not object to all of these categories being merged into "Wikipedians who served in the US Military", as their existance is redundant. One category for all active and prior service personnel, with sub-categories for the diverse branches, including Guard and Reserve, seems, to me, the best way to go. However, I'm not doctinaire on this. I would like to see other models, if they are available.--Lyricmac 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There are 200+ militaries in the world, each with one or more (usually more) services; add to that a past/present distinction which I think is important to maintain, and we have ca. 600-1000 categories. I see no utility in encouraging such a categorisation scheme, since the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any past or present off-wiki affiliations. Moreover, in many countries, military service is compulsory, so such categories would include a significant portion of those countries' populations. Overall, I'm not convinced that current or prior service in a military branch implies any sort of encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject or an above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic (i.e. sourced) content to military-related articles, especially in a way that does not breach the "no original research" policy. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Per my comment above:
Delete :Category:Users in the US Millitary; if kept, rename to :Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. military (not per nom).
Strong delete :Category:Wikipedians who served in the US military because the title is indicative of a past affiliation; if kept, rename to :Category:Wikipedians who served in the U.S. military (per nom).
Added later: upmerge only the subcategories to :Category:Wikipedian military people.
Delete :Category:Wikipedians in the United States Coast Guard; if kept, rename to :Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. Coast Guard (not per nom).
Oppose renaming :Category:Wikipedian military people; the suggested title of "who served" indicates a past affiliation, which is not overly useful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
How about :Category:U.S. Military Wikipedians as a catch-all category for all of the above?--Lyricmac 01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do you mean merging the others into it? If so, then I think that would be fine, except for :Category:Wikipedians who served in the US military, which I think should be deleted as it indicates a past affiliation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If there is to be a catch-all category, I would prefer for it to be :Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. military (present tense), but (as above) with :Category:Wikipedians who served in the US military excluded from the merge. However, I still think outright deletion of individual 'by military' categories for individual countries is the better option. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that there should not be a category for past US miliary personnel? That was the reason behind my catch-all category "US Military Wikipedians". I am not certain I understand.--Lyricmac 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I see no reason to categorise based on past affiliations. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - How is knowledge of the military different whether you are currently enlisted, were enlisted 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? The category is going to be used for ex-members of the military regardless of the rename, obviously, so the name should probably reflect that. This isn't about an affiliation to a club. As I've been noticing as I've gone through contribution histories and user pages regarding this, those who served or are serving consider this a profession. And someone may categorise themselves under Wikipedian accountants, whether they are now working as a lawyer, or even if they are retired. There are other benefits to the rename I've suggested, but that's enough for now. (For one thing, I'm attempting to look towards future categorisation as well.) Incidentally, The U.S. cat shouldn't be the "catch-all" since it's country specific, and "military people" is way too broad a term (it could include civillian military contractors, for example). - jc37 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The primary value I see in drawing a current/past distinction is that current members of the military could be aware of, or perhaps even produce, public domain images. If, by the way, my proposal does not gain consensus, then I prefer your suggested series of renames and merges to the status quo. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There's way more to collaborating on Wikipedia than image uploading, but I understand your thought. That said, I still think that no matter what we name them, they'll be used as the community chooses to, and we already see how that'll work... - jc37 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Merge per Black Falcon, seems reasonable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 3 =

== Category:User_als_and_subcats ==

Moved to Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion. The discussion is still ongoing, so please feel free to help work towards a consensus there. - jc37 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

= October 2 =

==[[:Category:Wikipedians who defy categorisation]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} speedied. Kbdank71 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Joke category; previous similar categories have been deleted before, so this may be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per long-established precedence.--WaltCip 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per G1 and G4. - jc37 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Frontier ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Speedy deleted per G7 - jc37 10:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Frontier - speedy delete. I created this but nobody joined me in it, so I've upmerged myself to :Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek. The category page history shows the creator as someone other than me, but that's only because it was renamed along with the other sub-cats. I've also deleted the userbox & related code (which had also been created by me) from User:UBX/Star Trek series. Only my archived talk page remains in the category; that's because somebody else was experimenting with userbox alignment for me. Let it go. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Panentheist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Panentheist Wikipedians - 2 member category. - jc37 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - Too broad to be useful to the project. This idea spans many belief systems. --Justanother 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Justanother. The idea seems to exist, in one form or another, in most major (in terms of # of adherents) religions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per my outlook on other religious categories. --Kbdank71 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. In particular, as Justanother mentioned, this category could be particularly useful in categorizing other user categories. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Bigwyrm, please note that panentheism is not a particular religion; it is a general belief that is found in multiple religions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I will give you that Panentheism is a general belief that corresponds to many religions. However, I still characterize that belief as a religion unto itself. As a close analog, consider Atheism. There are many Atheistic religions, all of which hold the belief that there is no such animal as a deity. Even though several (many?) religions hold that belief, Atheism is considered to be a religion unto itself. As a looser analog, consider the many sects of Christianity. Lutheranism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism, and Branch Davidianism are religions in their own right, but also obviously part of Christianity.
Also, please note that I specifically suggested that this be used as a container category for more specific Panentheistic religions. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
A singular belief is a belief. A group of beliefs (and questions about those beliefs) is a philosophy. "Religion refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction." So no, atheism (and any other -theism) isn't a religion. - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:New Age Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:New Age Wikipedians - Vague category inclusion:

:*"This page contains Wikipedians who have identified themselves (at least on Wikipedia) as being explorers of New age philosophy, whatever that means to each of them."

: per New Age, this is a "broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture".

:So it's vague and too broad. (It currently has 6 members.)- jc37 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - jc37 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - Too broad to be useful to the project. These ideas spans many belief systems. --Justanother 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jc37 and and Justanother. The disclaimer in the category description – "whatever that means to each of them" – is an indicator of excessive vagueness. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. whatever that means to each of them. So essentially, everyone in this category could be there for a different reason? Is that helpful? --Kbdank71 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Bigwyrm, please note that this is not a particular religion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I will give you that New Ageism is a general concept that corresponds to many religions. However, I still characterize that concept as a religion unto itself. As an appropriate analog, consider the many sects of Christianity. Lutheranism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism, and Branch Davidianism are religions in their own right, but also obviously part of Christianity.
As to the general assertion that the description "New Age" is too vague, please keep in mind that one of the key components which characterize New Age belief is personal exploration and expression. The "whatever that means to each of them" comment is there to make that clear to those who are not familiar with that ideology and cannot be bothered to read the article. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a philosophy, not a religion. - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Bokononist Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Bokononist Wikipedians - single user category. - jc37 11:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Neutral - What does it matter that it is "single user". So is :Category:Wikipedian civil engineers and :Category:Wikipedian environmental engineers. Certainly we do not think those should go away? What is the hurry? The cat is only a few weeks old. In the interest of full disclosure, I am the sole member and creator of all three of those. --Justanother 13:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. Reading the category description convinced me that it is in the same category as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Cthulhu, three more fake religions that were excommunicated from the user categories in July/August. The fact that there is only a single member to the group is icing on the cake. Horologium t-c 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmm, cake! Well if we did away with :Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians then I guess there is not much hope for me although I have practiced Bokononism for almost 40 years. Can the deletion of :Category:SubGenius Wikipedians be far off? What is the world coming to? --Justanother 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

::The CotSG user category was also deleted in the same nomination, but it was restored at DRV, along with Discordianism. This category did not exist at that time, or it would have been included in the nomination. Horologium t-c 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per my rationale in the August 2 discussion. Partly per Horologium as well; there must surely be thousands of religious belief systems ... subcategorising every single one is unlikely to be useful (well, less so than categorising users on the basis of religion in the first place). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Categorical apathy is not a sufficient rationale for retainment.--WaltCip 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Religious categories, even for fake religions, are not helpful. Nor are single-user categories. --Kbdank71 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that adherents of a religion, particularly a fictional one or one with a fictional origin, whichever is the case here, are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents.
As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system.
With regard to complaints of a fictional origin for this particular religion: most religions have a strong fictional aspect. Creation stories are characteristic of many religions. Most use parables, allegories, and koans to illustrate particular elements of ideology. The fact that a religion acknowledges that its fictional elements are, in fact, fictional, makes the religion no less valid.
Wow, that was a great wall of text. I wonder if anybody is still reading. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedian IATSE Stagehands ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedian IATSE Stagehands - A labour union... Same rationale as the rest below. - jc37 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It may be useful to know who is a stagehand, but I can't think of a reason to subcategories by employer, labour union, or the like. I'd suggest upmerging to ~~:Category:Wikipedian IATSE Stagehands~~ :Category:Wikipedian stagehands, but the members of the subcategory are already present in the parent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, you just suggested UpMerging the category to itself : ) - jc37 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That would present a problem, wouldn't it? ... :P ... It's fixed now. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doesn't help write articles. --Kbdank71 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== Fraternal organisations ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Freemasons

::Category:Wikipedians in the Junior Chamber

::Category:Wikipedians in the Knights of Columbus

::Category:Wikipedians in the Sons of the American Revolution

::Category:Wikipedians in the Sons of Norway

: - Again, interesting, but the categories are not needed. - jc37 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does not foster contribution in the slightest. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Many of the same arguments that led to the deletion of the fraternity and sorority categories (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30) apply. The ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. Also, in most or all cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Religion and other interest userboxes, by the same rationale, do not foster collaboration, either, but it does help to be able to find like-minded people with similar encyclopedic interests, and that is the case here. However, ther is conflation, because these are differnt types of organizations, and I wouldn't necessarily put them all together. MSJapan 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between userboxes that do not foster collaboration (consensus is that they are acceptable as long as they are in userspace) and categories that do not foster collaboration (consensus is that they should be deleted). I don't think your comparison to "interest" categories is entirely accurate, since interest categories indicate actual interest in a subject, whereas these categories merely indicate membership in an organisation (they don't actually say anything about "similar ... interests"). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians in the Hospitality Club ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Hospitality Club (See Hospitality Club) - Interesting, but again, no need for a category. - jc37 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Join WP:WELCOME if you want to be nice to people. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Many of the same arguments that led to the deletion of the fraternity and sorority categories (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30) apply. The ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. Also, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Student organisations ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in AIESEC

::Category:First Members

::Category:Wikipedians in FIRST

::Category:NCC Cadets

::Category:Wikipedians in the Model United Nations

::Category:Wikipedians in the National Forensic League

:Again, while these may be userful to note on a userpage, the categories aren't needed. - jc37 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Many Wikipedians are in many organizations. Those and these do not help contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Many of the same arguments that led to the deletion of the fraternity and sorority categories (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30) apply. The ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. Also, in most or all cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Save the Plants ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Plant Amnesty

::Category:Wikipedians in the Washington Native Plant Society

: - Single user categories. A userpage notice would be fine, but no need for categories. - jc37 01:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Burn the plants. Honestly, how would liking plants help foster contribution? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. These are single-user categories with relatively limited potential for growth (as best I can tell, both organisations are relatively small and local). Also, in both cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. Most importantly, the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Weed per nom.--WaltCip 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== IQ org categories ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Mensa

::Category:Wikipedians in the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry

::Category:Wikipedians in the Triple Nine Society

: - Besides self-identitification, I don't even see how a userpage notice is helpful, much less a category. - jc37 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as nominator. - jc37 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm smart too, doesn't mean I need a user category. Doesn't help foster contribution and could potentially lead to elitism. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. As categories that express an organisational affiliation, they are not particularly useful, since the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. As a category of smart people, it's potential usefulness is invalidated by WP:NOR and WP:V. Content should be supported by reliable sources and a reliable source found and added by someone with an IQ of 160 is no better or worse than one found and added by someone with an IQ of 80. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedians in Theta Chi ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Theta Chi - See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30. - jc37 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per previous discussion. - jc37 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per our consensus for the various fraternities and sororities. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and the precedent of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Category:National Honor Society Wikipedians ==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:National Honor Society Wikipedians

::Category:Wikipedians in Future Business Leaders of America-Phi Beta Lambda

::Category:Wikipedians in Mu Alpha Theta

::Category:Wikipedians in Phi Beta Kappa

::Category:Wikipedians in Phi Theta Kappa

::Category:Wikipedians in Pi Mu Epsilon

::Category:Wikipedians in Sigma Xi

::Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Pi

: - Per similar discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30. While it may be nice to know the information as a user page notice, the categories are not needed. - jc37 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - jc37 01:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per our consensus for the various fraternities and sororities. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and the precedent of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30. In most or all cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedians by mental and physiological condition and subcats ==

parent cats re-listed above....

=== Category:Depressive Wikipedians ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Depressive Wikipedians - Vague category inclusion criteria. Depression can be just having a "down" day, or can be a medical condition. Either way, while the userbox may be a useful notice, the category should probably go. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete for the following reasons. (1) As pointed out by the nom, the category is not well-defined. (2) The category's membership is potentially very large; it's telling that depression is considered the common cold of psychological conditions. (3) Merely having a condition, especially one as common as depression, implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. (4) The category could be exploited by trolls. After all, if the goal is to harm editors or the project, who better to harass than people who are already feeling down? I realise that the userbox could be exploited to this end as well, but the category just makes it too easy, without providing any substantial value in return. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Dysthymic Wikipedians ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Dysthymic Wikipedians - Dysthymia is merely a variety of depression (see above). Again, a userbox notice is fine, but no need for a category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Merge to :Category:Depressive Wikipedians. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per my rationale for #Category:Depressive Wikipedians above. Many of the same points apply. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Pumpmeup 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Hypochondriac wikipedians ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Hypochondriac wikipedians - Hypochondria - Another that may be useful as a userbox notice, but just no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Black Falcon Pumpmeup 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Paranoid Wikipedians ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Paranoid Wikipedians - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. Also, the category could be exploited by trolls (per point 4 of my argument for #Category:Depressive Wikipedians). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with borderline personality disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with borderline personality disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with general anxiety disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with general anxiety disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with multiple personality disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with multiple personality disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I suspect that most of the users in this category do not actually suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder and simply added the userbox to their page because they found it humorous. Horologium t-c 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:A continuing problem with several Wikipedian categories... sigh. - jc37 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with post-traumatic stress disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with post-traumatic stress disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with Social Anxiety Disorder ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with Social Anxiety Disorder - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with selective mutism ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with selective mutism - Probably the least useful of the medical condition categories: a social anxiety disorder in which a person who is normally capable of speech is unable to speak in given situations. - Not being able to talk has little to do with editing Wikipedia. - A userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with Tourette syndrome ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with Tourette syndrome - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with Narcolepsy ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with Narcolepsy - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians with breast cancer ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians with breast cancer - Another in which a userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer ===

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer - A category of 2 members (one of whom is the userbox creator), which apparently hasn't grown since its previous UCFD nomination. The userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and my rationale above. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users with this condition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, go ahead and delete as the category survived two previous attempts and a challenge. The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win. Mikebar 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:*Argument ad hominem and reverse psychology much?--WaltCip 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

::*I would rather think your statement would be more of a personal slight against me because I surrender on the basis of an argument that was lacking sufficient research. What is that phrase? Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Keeping or eliminating the category will make little difference in the fate of Wikipedia or the world. Mikebar 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Then, too, neither would deleting or keeping something like :Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews. It's a matter of context.--WaltCip 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:*I read the last discussion, and I stand by the comments I made then. As JC pointed out, there are two of you in the category since June. I skimmed through the other user's contribs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Koven.rm] In the last thousand edits, going back one year, the vast majority of edits were about Colombia and Colombia-related articles. Not cancer. How has this category helped exactly? --Kbdank71 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

=October 1=

==[[:Category:Wikipedians in the Free State Project]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians in the Free State Project}}

:Delete as Wikipedians by political ideology, or Keep as {{c|Wikipedians by organization}}. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, does not foster contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete in both cases. This is effectively a political ideology category, since it's akin to replacing :Category:Socialist Wikipedians with :Category:Wikipedians in (socialist organisation) (I realise that FSP is a libertarian organisation, but I'm only giving an example). As an organisational category, it's still not particularly useful, because the ability to improve articles with reliably sourced content is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

==[[:Category:Caribbean Wikipedians]]==

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. The contents of this category have changed significantly since the debate began. I suggest a restart without prejudice. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose speedy renaming this category to bring it in standard with the rest of :Category:Wikipedians by location. The proposed rename would be :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean.

Rename as nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
STRONG OPPOSE this is not a location user category but an ethnicity category :Category:Wikipedians_by_ethnicity_and_nationality. A new category should be created for Wikipedians in the Caribbean. --Vivenot 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, why is it populated almost entirely by location categories? Moreover, "Caribbean" is not exactly an ethnicity, but a regional affiliation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom, subject to change pending clarification above. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have created a Category for Wikipedians who are resident in the Caribbean, however this category should remain as is for Wikipedians who identify with or are affiliated with the Caribbean but who are not currently resident there.--Vivenot 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I will re-link all the geographical sub-categories for Wikipedians from the various Caribbean nations to the new Wikipedians in the Caribbean category. I hope this addresses the issue of the category being populated mostly by location sub-categories.--Vivenot 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you;re suggesting that the subcategories be moved to :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean, but the userpages be left in this category? Also, could you please clarify what you mean by "who identify with or are affiliated with"? ... It's a bit vague. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone through the user pages. What a mess. There are several US Virgin Islands templates which populate this, plus several users who "affiliate" with the Jamaica, or are "from" Jamaica. And after going through a few other similar categories, I wonder if maybe the whole ethnicity set of subcats should be deleted per "A userpage notice, such as a userbox may be useful, but the category is not needed..." - jc37 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
For people who are affiliated but not currently living there? I thought we deleted all of the "born in XXX" categories? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There are still quite a few categories in the Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality group which list Wikipedians not only by national descent e.g Dutch, Indian etc but also by region e.g Asian, Arab. I propose that the Caribbean Wikipedians category should remain as a similar category. Or are all these other Ethnicity categories to be deleted?--Vivenot 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename/merge per nom. --Kbdank71 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge most per nom. Merge the subcats. The users will have to be done on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As the Wikipedians in the Caribbean category has now been created, renaming is no longer an option. Also the location subcategories now all point to :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean. The Categories which should be merged are :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean and :Category:Wikipedians from the Caribbean Community. I still maintain however :Category:Caribbean Wikipedians should remain, otherwise all Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality categories should be deleted. --Vivenot 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
'Rename' and 'merge' are essentially the same. I don't see how merging this category implies that all ethnicity and nationality categories should be deleted, given the fact that "Caribbean" is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality, especially when it doesn't refer to minorities outside of the region. Also, you stated above that the criterion for inclusion in this category is identification or affiliation with the Caribbean; that is much too vague to serve as a basis for useful categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge the subcats only (already merged, I see) and remove the category from the individual userpages. Given the vague inclusion criterion of 'affiliation' with the Caribbean, it's better to delete the category and let the users recategorise themselves as necessary and appropriate. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
For someone to categorise themselves as being Caribbean is no less vague that categorising themselves as Asian or African, neither of which are either nationalities or ethnicities. The Caribbean is a distinct region - if the Caribbean Wikipedian category is to be deleted then so should these other user categories. --Vivenot 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The existence of other, similar categories, both of which I think should be deleted, does not justify the existence of this one. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a useful analogy (like Vivenot made) and mindlessly citing a (rather flawed) guideline. "Caribbean" isn't terribly vague - it's a useful, workable, realistic category, especially out in the diaspora (you know, just the people this renaming would exclude). Guettarda 06:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider the analogy useful, because I think both of the noted categories should be deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The Virgin Islands, and Jamaican Wikipedians have been recatted. What's left in the cat are a few who at one time were from a Carribean island (each of which doesn't currently have a cat), someone from the US state of Georgia, and someone from the South American mainland country of Guyana. I'm leaning towards deletion. Though comments are welcome. - jc37 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, exactly - all these categories have been renamed. So I can't honestly put myself in :Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago, now there's a move to tell me I can't call myself a Caribbean Wikipedian either. So I suppose I'm only allowed to call myself an Okie, despite the fact that I feel almost no connection to the state? Guettarda 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You can call yourself anything you like, but the userpage is the best place for self-identification that has little to do with encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This is only somewhat related to this discussion, but in the past it has been discussed to merge the ethnic and location cats to the "Wikipedians from..." formula. Perhaps that discussion should be revisited. (I would support such a nom at this time.) - jc37 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember at least two discussion for "Wikipedians from..." categories that I personally nominated that ended in deletion. I do not think that place of origin (unlike place of residence) is useful information in terms of encyclopedic collaboration. I think merging the ethnic and location categories would just undermine the varying levels of usefulness that they both possess. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree completely - place of origin is a vital and encyclopedic way of classifying Wikipedians as well as providing useful background as to the Wikipedian's social cultural perspective and area of expertise.--Vivenot 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
But it is not the goal of Wikipedia to classify its editors. The purpose of user categories is to promote collaboration, not to categorise users for the sake of categorisation itself. As far as "providing useful background as to the Wikipedian's social cultural perspective and area of expertise", that is accomplished via userpage content, including userboxes. Categories are useful only if there's a reason for someone to look through a category of Wikipedians of a certain type. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"It is not the goal of Wikipedia to classify its editors" - then why are there so many User Categories? :Category:Wikipedians--Vivenot 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of user categories (approximately 4000 by my count), but user categorisation is not itself an end. The foremost goal of Wikipedia is to produce high-quality articles: user categories that are thought to foster encyclopedic collaboration (such as most subcategories of :Category:Wikipedians by language and :Category:Wikipedians by interest) are retained; those that serve no such purpose, or that only exist to complement user profiles, are routinely deleted. You can get an idea of the approximate number of user categories deleted or merged each month by looking at the UCFD archives. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not say that user categorisation is an end in itself. I agree that the subcategories you mention are useful in fostering collaboration and that there are many user categories which should be deleted as they do not help in achieving this. However, a Wikipedian's country or region of origin is as useful a characteristic for fostering collaboration as is current location, language or interest. --Vivenot 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories that provide information on the location of users are useful when it comes to procuring free/public domain images of certain areas (buildings, natural features, people, and so on). Categories that provide information on the language skills of users are useful when it comes to translating foreign-language sources and/or articles. Categories that provide information regarding users' interests are useful because they identify which users are interested in editing certain articles. What purpose is served by place of origin categories that is not served just as well or better by location, language, or interest categories? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason is that people travel. Classifying Wikipedians by both their current residency as well as their origin covers the many expatriates in the world. For example: a student who has spent their whole life growing up in one country but who has gone to study in another country will no doubt know more about their home country than a new immigrant to that country. It should be possible to reflect this in their user categorisation. --Vivenot 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Per the "no original research" policy, material added to articles should be supported by reliable sources, not by personal experience or knowledge. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? You really think that there's no difference between someone writing about a topic they know about, and someone writing about a topic they're ignorant of? Or when someone adds some uncited information, you don't think it's helpful to be able to differentiate between something that's relevant (and thus should be sourced, or at least {{tl|fact}}-tagged), and something that is actually false (and is thus vandalism that needs to be removed immediately)? Guettarda 06:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"Caribbean" is a broad identity; I doubt the informal fact-checking to which you refer would prove useful in such cases. More specialised categories (by ethnicity/nationality or by location) would do just as well, or even better. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think it is an ethnicity category, I think it is a location category. Most of the Caribbean Wikipedians that I know (not a big sample I admit) come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. I am not sure what ethnic Caribbean would be anyhow; I think the implication is that it would be black Caribbean, but native Amerindian Caribbeans, and Caribbean people who are of European or East Indian descent (of whom there are many) may well object strongly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - it is not a homogenous ethnic group. There should be location category not only for current location/residence but also for country/region of origin.--Vivenot 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment (2). Whilst I think there are compelling reasons for grouping together Caribbean Wikipedians into supranational groups (common culture, common heritage, single unified legal system, single unified university, single unified cricket team, most countries too small individually to have any regional significance), none of those arguments strike me as a good reason not to conform the naming of the group to Wikipedians [in/from] the Caribbean for consistency. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Legis, there is already a Wikipedians in the Caribbean category. There is a category for Wikipedians from the Caribbean Community. What about merging this latter category with Caribbean Wikipedians and renaming it as Wikipedians from the Caribbean? --Vivenot 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Wikipedians from..." format goes against current convention and past precedent (see here, for isntance). More importantly, the various discussions about such categories have not produced an explanation for why they are useful. When I asked my question above, I was not merely trying to rebut your argument; I am genuinely interested in whether "origin" categories have some sort of purpose beyond complementing user profiles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think our responses crossed. See above. --Vivenot 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The original purpose for the Caribbean Wikipedian category was to support the :Wikipedia:Caribbean_Wikipedians%27_notice_board which is one of several :Wikipedia:Regional_notice_boards. In this respect it has a clear purpose of fostering collaboration.--Vivenot 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Would not the noticeboard be supported just as well by :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean and :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Caribbean? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Counterproposal - I propose merging :Category:Caribbean Wikipedians with :Category:Wikipedians from the Caribbean Community and keeping :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean. --Vivenot 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

::*Not all nation-states in the "Caribbean" are in the "Caribbean Community" i.e. CARICOM. P.S. Caribbean people should consider leaving Wikipedia and forming a better Wiki somewhere else. That's the same thing I think the Cuba group had done at one point since there's soo many Non-Cubans breaking up the flow of the editing such as this. CaribDigita 23:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

:::*Point taken about Caricom, CaribDigita. However, I'm just trying to find a compromise - hopefully within Wikipedia if possible (Don't give up just yet!).--Vivenot 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose - a remarkably high proportion of Caribbean people live outside of the Caribbean, but identify substantially with the region and our countries of origin. In the 1990 census, there were more than 100,000 Trinidadian-born people in the US (that from a country with 1.3 million people). There are comparable numbers of Trinidadian-born people in Canada and the UK. And Trinidad has historically had lower rates of emigration than other Caribbean countries. A "Caribbean" identity is actually strongest among diasporan Caribbean people. Ethnic groups are categorised on the basis of self-identification. So why should those of us who happen to live outside of the Caribbean be excluded from our primary category of self-identification to meet someone's arbitrary desire for uniformity? Guettarda 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's anyone's goal to try to impose a certain identity on you or anyone else. However, the purpose of user categories is not self-identification for the sake of self-identification alone. The principles that Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia and not a MySpace-type user profile site, which are relaxed in the user namespace but still apply to all pages (including pages in the category namespace), suggest that user categories should be useful to the encyclopedia (by fostering encyclopedic collaboration). There are literally thousands of regions across the world, many of which result merely from slight differences in definitions, and even more identities; they cannot and should not all be reasonably accomodated here (not in small part because too much information can be overwhelming). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
We are not arguing that Wikipedia should be a social networking site. What we are saying, however, is that allowing Wikipedians to classify themselves by their national, regional or ethnic identity is a useful encyclopedic tool alongside where the Wikipedian currently resides and what language(s) they speak. I agree there are many frivolous user categories which should be controlled, but this clearly is not one of them and therefore this category should be kept.--Vivenot 09:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll repeat what I asked above: how? What usefulness does this type of category supply that is not prohibited by the "no original research" policy and that is not already provided by the language, location, and interest categories? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Because this does not cover the whole picture regarding the relationship between Wikipedians and countries or regions. Wikipedians may be originally from one country or region but resident in another but they may be interested in another region altogether. E.g. a person from Trinidad who is resident in the USA but who is interested in India.--Vivenot 06:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but (for the reasons you state), we shouldn't assume any connection between interest and place of residence, place of origin, or language, regardless of how complete or incomplete the picture is. Interest should be handled by interest categories (such as :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Caribbean), translation by language categories, and images by location categories (such as :Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean)? What does that leave for "place of origin" categories? What is their unique contribution? To me, that is the crux of the issue, and I don't think they add anything that is not already provided by the three other category types. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)