Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television
Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television
Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television and subcats
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete all except
Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television. However, as all subcategories will be deleted, that category will become empty, so will be subject to
C1 speedy deletion (without prejudice to recreation, of course, as per all C1 speedy deletions). If it gets recreated and populated, it can be brought back here. This has been open far too long, and everyone is reluctant to close, so even though I was a participant in the debate, the lack of closers makes this necessary. I would have liked to not have to close, but I feel this closure fairly represents the consensus below.
VegaDark (
talk)
00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television
-
Category:Wikipedians who like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Late Night with Conan O'Brien
-
Category:Wikipedians who like the Late Show with David Letterman
-
Category:Wikipedians who like The O'Reilly Factor
-
Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain
-
Category:Wikipedians who like The Soup - not even a talk show, but rather a show which highlights talk shows.
-
Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC - per
this discussion
- Delete all as essentially single article categories, and per
various precedent, specifically
these talk shows. -
jc37
20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - as nominator. -
jc37
20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. -
LA @
17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Request a suspension of all
Wikipedians by media interest and
Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include
comics,
film,
games,
literature,
music,
news sources,
radio, and
television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. -
LA @
08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete the CNBC category (watching a TV station does not imply any ability or desire to improve articles about the station) and weak delete the rest as sparsely-populated (in some cases, such as
Category:Wikipedians who like The Soup, single-user) categories with limited collaborative scope (in most cases, such as
Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain, limited to a single article). All user categories
do need to revolve around facilitating encyclopedic collaboration.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep "Talk television" category as being fairly broad. Other than that, I agree with BF. —
Scouter
Sig
14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (Attempting to discern clarity) - By agreeing with BF, you're saying: Strong delete of CNBC, and Weak delete of the rest, but suggesting to Keep the parent category? -
jc37
00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Yes; Keep Talk TV, delete the rest. The parent/main category is broad enough to be useful as a collaboration/information source, but no so specific as to be divisive. I'm thinking it is on par with a "Talk radio" category. —
Scouter
Sig
15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I would agree. Though note that the "talk radio" categories
have all been recently deleted. -
jc37
15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I also support keeping the parent category. Thought it will become a candidate for speedy deletion (C1 - empty) if the subcategories are removed, a C1 deletion can be overturned without any formal review if ever there is a need for an actual "interest" category (as opposed to a parent category) for talk television.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
jc37
17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in film
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete – the subcategories were moved during the course of the discussion, so depopulation essentially amounts to deletion. There are a couple of problems that this category had, including the ambiguity as to if those in the category are interested in individual films vs. cinema. As said below, there is no prejudice in creation of
Category:Wikipedians interested in cinema. If the proposed guideline mentioned below ends up panning out, this is of course not an irreversible decision. --
MZMcBride (
talk)
04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in film - depopulate of all but subcats (making this a parent cat) per previous precedent of "interested in books". Similar to television, below, this is simply too vague in naming to be useful for anything but a parent cat. -
jc37
18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depopulate - as nominator. -
jc37
18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as is I disagree, and there really wasn't any precedent formed from the books discussion. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. --
Ned Scott
05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depopulate per nom. - But with
reservations about "depopulate" noms from now on if we are not able to enforce them.
VegaDark (
talk)
05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose It would force the creation of possibly hundreds of sub-categories. -
LA @
21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, all categories of those interested in a particular (individual) film have been deleted. Only those interested in film series remain.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There are hundreds of
film series. -
LA @
17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Request a suspension of all
Wikipedians by media interest and
Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include
comics,
film,
games,
literature,
music,
news sources,
radio, and
television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. -
LA @
08:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depopulate, doesn't serve any purpose as it is.
Snowolf
How can I help?
18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Is this a category for Wikipedians interested in the subject of film or for those interested in one or more specific films? Or, is it just a grouping of people who like to watch films? If it is the first, it should be kept. If it is the second or third, it should be depopulated. Given the ongoing discussion concerning the depopulation of
Category:Wikipedians interested in history (see
here), I'm starting to think that we shouldn't depopulate categories unless they are explicitly parent categories (that is, they contain some form of "Wikipedians by" in their title). I would not be opposed to a proposal to rename (i.e. repurpose) and depopulate this category, but I'm reluctant to support depopulation under the current name.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Then that's a problem in naming (which several of these have). Consider the "books as objects" result. I would strongly support a speedy rename of adding an "s" to "film". That simple change should deal with your concern. -
jc37
19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that it's an issue with multiple categories (including, in addition to this one, "interested in television", "interested in books", "interested in history"), but I'm not sure the addition of an "s" to "film" will be enough, especially since it would still leave open the possibility of repopulation of the category. Is there any way that this could be converted into a "Wikipedians by" parent category? (Incidentally, the "books as objects" category is still a single-user category, and the creator did note that he supported deletion if membership didn't increase within a month of creation...)
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- So something like "Wikipedians by interest in films"? (I still think the "s" is important since it helps distinguish between films as finished products; and film as an art; or as a profession; or, for that matter, as an object.) -
jc37
00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- As a parent cat to subcats dealing with specific films (and possibly a parent of parent cats - the parent: films by director, for example). Does that clarify better? -
jc37
01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
jc37
17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who use an AMD Dual Core processor
Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series (subcategories only)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (
WP:SNOW and clear consensus below) as not facilitating encyclopedic activity. -
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who like American Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Australian Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Canadian Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Indian Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Latin American Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Malaysian Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like New Zealand Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Philippine Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Pinoy Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Pop Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Singapore Idol (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
We don't need a category for every spin-off of this series. Far too narrow for collaboration to get this specific. These should all be upmerged to the parent category (or preferably, deleted as "liking" a show does not help the encyclopedia).
VegaDark (
talk)
00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Upmerge to
Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series or delete all as nom.
VegaDark (
talk)
00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - including the parent (as a "who like" cat doesn't clearly enough indicate collaborative interest). Each one seems to be (or at least nearly is) a "single article" category. No prejudice against the creation of
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Idol series per
Idol series. -
jc37
09:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - per nom and jc37. Also, the mere act of watching a reality show, which is the sentiment expressed by
the userbox, does not imply liking it, and watching or liking a reality show does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per Black Falcon, esp. "does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest."
Master Redyva
♠
- Delete all and why can't we get rid of the parent cat too? —
Scouter
Sig
19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I originally said subcategories only as I didn't think there would be consensus to delete all, but I fully support deleting it as well (and i see that it has been tagged) if that is what consensus is here (which I am happy to see looks to be the case).
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Decatur Wikipedians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation (only member already in target category)- Just found
this, ironically resulting in rename to my proposed upmerge target.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Decatur Wikipedians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
The category description reads as "This category lists Wikipedia users who currently live in or have previously lived in
Decatur, Alabama or the Decatur Metropolitan Area located in Alabama, United States; that includes the counties of Morgan, and Lawrence.", however the userbox says "This user lives in or hails from Decatur, Alabama." Decatur, Alabama has a population of about 56,000, so it is borderline for a category in that respect, but the fact the category has only a single user is also something that should be considered. My first choice would be to upmerge this to
Category:Wikipedians in the Huntsville-Decatur Area, Alabama (which perhaps could use a rename of its own in the future). My second choice would be delete as single user category (and possibly as too small of a location to support a category), and my third choice would be to rename the category to
Category:Wikipedians in Decatur, Alabama.
VegaDark (
talk)
00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Bolinas
Category:Wikipedians in Dallas
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Dallas (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in El Paso
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in El Paso (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Houston
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Houston (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Laredo
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Laredo (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in San Antonio
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in San Antonio (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Bakersfield
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Bakersfield (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Denver
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Denver (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Austin
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Austin (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who play the mandolin
Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh
Category:Wikipedians with a global account
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Wizardman
17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians with a global account - As this is currently only available to administrators, this would seem to be potentially duplicative of
Category:Administrators. Another case of where the userbox(es), or other userpage notcies, should be fine, but the category, not so much. -
jc37
18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as nominator. -
jc37
18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, not just for that reason, but because the category has no benefit. The global account is purely a technical issue, and doesn't reflect a person's views, positions, powers, or anything of the sort. Knowing that user X has a global account tells me absolutely nothing about user X. Even when other users have access to this category, it'll still be pointless.
Ral315 (
talk)
20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think this is an issue. By placing oneself in this category, I don't see why that equates to a "position of power", "status seeking" or anything of the sort. Rather, it's a purely informative resource of information. I don't think your point is applicable.
Anthøny
19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. The full list is availabe
here, anyway. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
VegaDark (
talk •
contribs)
00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Quite a few user categories are frivolous, but this one isn't. As per
Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Single User Login and other discussions, this feature has great significance for the project. Users who are participating in the beta stage can easily locate one another via this category, and others who are interested in how it is proceeding can easily locate them. —
Athaenara
✉
00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Ral. While the category potentially wouldn't duplicate CAT:ADMINS (administrators from other projects who are not administrators here could be included), and the feature does have great significance for the project, I don't know why one user with a global account would need to find another via this category, and anyone interested in how it's going can check
the reports on Bugzilla.
WODUP
07:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Athaenara. Seems to me this would have great use for people either trying to learn more about global accounts. This could additionally be used by users who are looking for others that have accounts on other wikis they are active on.
Glass
Cobra
07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- I have a global account and I am not an admin here.
miranda
07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per Ral315, WODUP, and Black Falcon.
Horologium
(talk)
13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I found myself in this category one day because someone added it to the template I had just added to my userpage. I had to subst the template so I could remove myself from the category, as it is useless. Just because someone is in this category does not mean they are able to or want to help you with global accounts. If you want help with global accounts, go to
m:Help:Unified login. --
Kbdank71
18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, serves /no/ purpose at all. While I disagree it's inherently a copy of
Category:Administrators (as not all in that category have a global account yet), I do think it's relatively useless. Essentially, this is a category saying "this user has the same username elsewhere," which is not a category we'd probably allow (how does it help the encyclopedia?). The users in this category most do not inherently know how to help users with SUL transition (for many people, it's a matter of pressing "submit" on Special:MergeAccount), so I don't believe that is a good reason to keep it either.
65.97.18.143 (
talk) —Preceding
comment was added at
10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Above comment is mine, I forgot to sign in. ^
demon
[omg plz]
10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. If someone wants to do research about users with global accounts, finding out who has the userbox on their page would be just as effective, and would take only a few more clicks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Scoutersig (
talk •
contribs) 19:09, 1 April 2008
[1]
- That assumes someone knows the userbox name, no?
Gimmetrow
22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- All you have to do is hit "edit" and there's a list of all transcluded pages (for example, this section shows that {{
unsigned}} is being used.
EVula //
talk //
☯ //
23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Not quite what I was implying. Right above this is a discussion of
Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh, North Carolina. If someone wants to know users in the category, it's the same as finding out what userpages hav {{
User Raleigh}}. "Just takes a few clicks more." If this argument were persuasive, we wouldn't have many user categories.
Gimmetrow
01:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Good point Gimmetrow. However, I think this user cat would help little for curiosity/research, and not at all for collaboration. Because of its limited functionality, I was trying to express that it is still possible to follow up on curiosity/research without the category. —
Scouter
Sig
15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Though I think the nominating rationale doesn't say it best. This is, quite simply, a unique category only as a temporary measure. Unless my understanding is off, unified logins are going to happen for everyone (they're only for admins right now because it's a smaller group with which to test this out with). Once that happens, this category will be as helpful as "Wikipedians with an account".
EVula //
talk //
☯ //
23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As I see there is some utility, because there are few users with a global account. But when global account be enabled to everyone, it has no more purpose and is equivalent to "Category:Wikipedians with an account".
Carlosguitar
(Yes Executor?)
18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Some are under the mispaken assumption that only English administrators populate this category. Note that this feature is open to admins on every project, and those do not have to be an admin here. So the argument that this cat copies
Category:Wikipedia administrators is not true. Also, if people do not want to be categorised, use |category= or |nocat=1. So that takes care of the two most heard objections here. —
Edokter •
Talk •
16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedians who play board games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play board games - tagged this merely as nearly the entire tree has been nominated. (And noting I merged Vega Dark's several noms to this one. Feel free to "un-merge" the nomination if wanted.) -
jc37
15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who play tafl games
Category:Wikipedians who play chess
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play chess - Same rationale as the group nom above. No prejudice against creation of a "by interest" version, though such a cat may not be appropriate for inclusion in some "who play" userboxes. -
jc37
15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who use Twinkle
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who use Twinkle (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
With the advent of the new "gadgets" tab in "My preferences", using Twinkle is as simple as checking a checkbox in preferences, so I would argue that whatever use this category might have had before that was added is no longer applicable. No real use to search for other users with Twinkle since it is so easy for a user to add now, it is potentially all-inclusive.
VegaDark (
talk)
04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nom.
VegaDark (
talk)
04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Obsodelete.
Dorftrottel (
complain) 09:40,
March 31, 2008
- Delete as per nom.
Horologium
(talk)
13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, Those who just check the checkbox aren't making personal settings, they're only using defaults. With this line of thinking, the category is more likely to include editors using more details, possibly advanced options, or at least have a better than average understanding of Twinkle. This is about as "all inclusive" as the category for Internet Explorer (last I checked it was still most common browser in use). --
Ned Scott
01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, though Ned makes some good points. However, I don't see this as a particularly helpful category; just because someone uses Twinkle doesn't mean that they'd be able to help another user with a bug, and there are better venues for that (like
WT:TWINKLE or
WP:VPT).
EVula //
talk //
☯ //
23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Ann Arbor
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Ann Arbor (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Atlanta
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy rename.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Atlanta (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brunei work group members
Category:New users to WP:NOVELS
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge to
Category:WikiProject Novels participants. (List already exists; issues with naming conventions; and concerns with the subjectivity of "new".) -
jc37
17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:New users to WP:NOVELS (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
No need to categorize only the new users,
Category:WikiProject Novels participants already exists. Also, no indication it is a user category.
VegaDark (
talk)
21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nom, presuming the members are already in the second category. Merge if not.
VegaDark (
talk)
21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - a list of new users to the project is already available
here.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Neutral If the WikiProject wants to have a category like this, I see no reason to delete it. It could actually be very useful for a number of reasons. When I used to give new participant notices for
WP:DIGI I would have to rely on memory and individual page histories to see if I had already given a notice or not, and that's a much smaller group than WP:NOVELS. The only problem I can see is maintenance of it, but that could be something as easy as a time-trigger in a userbox. --
Ned Scott
07:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Although I may be somewhat bias in favour of keeping the page because I created it, I should point out that I created it for a reason, so that members of the project could visit the users' talk pages and elp them adjust.
WilliamMThompson (
talk)
10:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Upmerge. When does "new" end? —
Scouter
Sig
15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedian Underground Miner
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete - single user cat (and concerns about the current name). No prejudice against (re-)creation (though renamed, as appropriate) should there be more interest. -
jc37
17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedian Underground Miner (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Needs a rename to fix capitalization and plurality per naming conventions at
Category:Wikipedians by profession. Additionally, although I am no expert, I would consider "underground mining" similar enough to mining in general to just rename this to
Category:Wikipedian miners. Also, I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion as a single-user category.
VegaDark (
talk)
21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians from Santa Catarina
Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete - I'm closing this early as the only (two?) opposer(s) agree with the new category name. No prejudice against nomination of the new category (which has apparently already been created). -
jc37
15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
The cat was created in response to a discussion at
Talk:Iron Maiden#New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and it serves no purpose other than to make a point.
Funeral
14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I
support Black Falcon's motion to keep & rename.
Master Redyva (
talk)
18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep! I believe this could be a strong category. It appears this is an ongoing issue of debate and could act as a catalsyt for research and debate on the subject. I also believe it is a stronger catergory than Wikipedians who read Oscar Wilde, Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, Wikipedians who listen to world music. I also believe in "Wikilove," is that wrong? Please do not delete.
66.162.207.31 (
talk)
17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Black Falcon is not only an active editor, but is also very bright. I concure with the rename: "Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal"
66.162.207.31 (
talk)
19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I believe it should be renamed or the creation should be allowed even if by consensus it is not considered to be a music genre because I do listen the the NWOBHM bands (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc...). Even if it is not a genre, the bands still belong to the era (or wave of music from the time period).
Master Redyva (
talk)
21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Absolutely pointless category with no purpose beyond self-identification, which UCFD consensus has determined to be moot.--
WaltCip (
talk)
22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- delete A category created just to try and prove a point in a content argument.
Peter Fleet (
talk)
23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as both pointy and not useful. I believe a great many things, none of which are appropriate for user categories. I am not opposed to the creation of an appropriately named category, as proposed by Black Falcon, but I'd rather see a new category rather than a rename, as the parameters of this category do not precisely match the parameters of the proposed cat.
Horologium
(talk)
02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Die Hard series
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Die Hard series - As I look over the members of the category, I see:
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond - A lengthy series with quite a few related articles. See also:
Category:James Bond.
-
Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series - Though only 3 films, it's spanned several media types. See also:
Category:Matrix series.
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python - Talk about spanning the media. See also:
Category:Monty Python
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars - And unless you've lived under a rock or in a cave, this should be self-explanatory. See also:
Category:Star Wars.
- The best that this cat has for comparison is:
Category:Die Hard films. (See also:
Die Hard series.) There really is no comparison.
- I'm nominating this for procedural reasons as well. Noting that there are (as one Wikipedian put it) innumerable "series" out there. There should be more than the series of interlinked films to justify the "need" for a Wikipedian category. -
jc37
20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- "
Category:Die Hard films is now up for CFD. —
Scouter
Sig
02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as nominator. -
jc37
20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete - partly per nom and partly due to the text of
User:Sasoriza/Die Hard user (all members of the category transclude the userbox). The userbox does not express an interest in the subject of the Die Hard series so much as it expresses a liking for the films or a liking for one or more of the phrases contained (e.g. "live free and die hard", "Yipikayay, motherfucker").
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete, but without prejudice to recreation of a similar category geared towards collaboration on the franchise as a whole (
Category:Wikipedians interested in Die Hard?). I don't particularly like "series" since I feel that refers exclusively toward the movies rather than including video games or other such articles that users might be enticed to collaborate on relating to Die Hard.
Template:Die Hard lists 12 articles that I believe users could collaborate on, which is probably enough to support a category, but per my naming concerns and per BF pointing out that all users in the category simply have that userbox, I think it is best this is deleted rather than renamed.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete or rename per VegaDark's wonderful explanation.
нмŵוτн
τ
19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as a superfluous category attached indiscriminately to a userbox. —
Scouter
Sig
19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: As described at
Portal talk:Energy#Show your support, the userboxes that populate this category are for users who "support" (in the emotional sense, not the physical sense) the Energy Portal. Thus, this category is essentially a variation on the various "friends of" user categories that have been deleted in the past (see, for example,
this discussion). Such categories
do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration and are essentially unrelated to editing. There is a separate category for users who actually maintain the portal:
Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Energy Portal.
- (The text of the previous nomination of this category (and affiliated discussion), which resulted in a "no consensus" outcome, is located
here.)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language (parent category only)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias.
Kbdank71
13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language to ...
- The
March 15 discussion for this category tree resulted in the renaming of all subcategories to the Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the [Language] Wikipedia format; however, the title of the parent category was not really addressed. This nomination is intended to prompt discussion regarding the appropriate name for the parent category. Options include (please propose others if you can think of any):
- –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It would be good to follow the "Wikipedians by" convention (which would clearly identify this as being a parent category only), but "Wikipedians by contribution" focuses the category title on the nature of the contributions, implying that users are subcategorised based on the type of contributions that they make (e.g. image uploads, article writing, maintenance, etc.). Of the four options above, my current preference is for some form of "Wikipedians who contribute", to match the subcategories ... probably
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Question/Comment Do the words "Wikipedian" AND "contributor" both have to be in there? That would seem redundant to me. What about "Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language?" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Scoutersig (
talk •
contribs) 19:16, April 1, 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, "Contributors to other Wikipedias by language" might include articles about notable editors of en.wikipedia. Of course, none of the other proposed names are problem-less, so...
Black Falcon (
Talk)
22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Creamy Army WikiProject members
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Creamy Army WikiProject members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This is a userspace project, not a real Wikiproject (and for good reason- "WikiProject Creamy Army is a WikiProject designed for and about users whose username’s include the word “Creamy” in it") and as such does not need its own category. If categories were allowed for userspace projects, that would set precedent for hundreds of similar categories to be created. Note also that the redirect,
Category:WikiProject Creamy Army members, should be deleted along with this if this results in delete.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete - Creator request. Looks like the information has found a home at
User:Snakesteuben/follyglotten, and the notice may be placed through
User:Snakesteuben/Meidogger/Follyglot. -
jc37
23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:User follyglot (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
"These users frequently edit pages written in languages they don't understand" - No reason to search for such users, not helpful to project, improper naming convention used.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
But first, please take a quick look at the text of the category
talk page, where I quickly scratched and pasted some text to convey the "vision" I had in mind. (Note: I'm not trying to "save" the category. I understand how the multitude of users on this project might necessitate an extremely aggressive deletion policy.) Just let me know if there's any place at all on English wikipedia where information like this might be helpful to someone. The "no reason" and "not helpful" judgements have already led me to expect a negative answer, so you needn't reply if the answer is "no." If you do reply, please drop a pointer on my talk page, or do it there, particularly if it's anything time-sensitive. Delete whenever you wish, without further notice. I've already got a version of this same content saved elsewhere on another project--one small enough to have the luxury of being more laid back without fear of chaos. Again, I understand why you need to be more strict here, and I'll keep stuff like this on sites like that from now on. Thanks for your time!
Winter S. (
talk)
06:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Step back guys, I think you are missing something here. --
Bduke (
talk)
06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- What is a more appropriate naming convention:
Category:Wikipedians who are happy to stubble though the process of editting pages on other subdomains ?
John Vandenberg (
talk)
08:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- John: I conceived this as about pure wiki tech and editing, while the no-prefix categories seemed to me to be the convention for pure interest type things. Since I saw "User" in other language type categories here, and it seems to have passed muster elsewhere, I assumed that was the thing to do. Beyond that, yeah, my porting macro isn't perfect, but at least it did replace "Meidogger" with "User"!
Winter S. (
talk)
10:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as empty/speedy renamed. I've removed the lone user from the category, who had several other mainspace categories on their userpage as well.
VegaDark (
talk)
15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
Category:Stage magicians. The contents of this category have been moved to
Category:Magicians.
Gjs238 (
talk)
13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia
Category:Wikipedians who like Harry Potter
Category:Wikipedians interested in a region
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus (after over a month) - There was a lot of good discussion, but relisting "again" is probably not a good idea (as possibly confusing, for one thing). No prejudice against a new nomination (which should probably consider the suggestions/ideas below). -
jc37
17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename
Category:Wikipedians interested in a region to
Category:Wikipedians by regional interest or similar
- Nominator's rationale: A category for Wikipedians interested in an unspecified region is not especially useful, so this category should function as a parent category only. To that end, it should be renamed to a title that more accurately reflects its purpose. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - This sorely needs a rename (and possible pruning). It seems that this is supposed to be about
Political divisions and
Country subdivisions, not
geography. (Or perhaps it is both, in which case a "split" for clarity is in order.) "Region" is just too unclear. Suggestions welcome. -
jc37
20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom (and depopulate the single user in the category). I don't particularly have a problem with the broadness of "region", and if that is a problem, we can always add subcategories for "Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by geographic interest" and recategorize as appropriate.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Falcon (
Talk)
18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I just changed my comments directly above from "...in a country" to "...in countries". I'd like to sidestep any potential future drama concerning whether such-n-such name is one country or two. -
jc37
21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Attempting to avoid the recurring drama of nationalistic self-identification. As I go through the various countries, there are real life controversies in naming, and questions whether a country is actually two (or more) countries, or a single country. This can possibly get more complicated when dealing with things such as the
European Union. I think we're better off staying out of the debate, and if merely making a singular word plural can do so, I'm all for it : ) -
jc37
18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
jc37 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Apparently more discussion is needed. -
jc37
19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Really other than "Interested in Africa" this is a list of countries. But what if someone is interested in Africa or "the Carribean" or the "Middle East?" A rename to "interest by country" would be exclusive of those wikipedians. —
Scouter
Sig
14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I've actually been considering nominating the Africa one for deletion as "too broad". But even if kept, then there's always BF's Feb 18 suggestion, above. -
jc37
00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as same nameI think that regions are as important as individual countries to study (speaking as a geography student). I think that the category is fine as it is, though needing some structure. Say, "Region > ___ region/continent > country" ? —
Scouter
Sig
15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I understand, which is something we were discussiing further up this discussion (goegraphy, country, etc.) May I ask that you re-read this whole discussion, and comment on the several ideas for a ReOrg? (I'm noting that there now seems to be a consensus for "some kind" of ReOrg, we just seem to be working out the details.) -
jc37
15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians by skill
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy close (noting the discussion below) - Feel free to nominate for individual discussion. -
jc37
20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians by skill (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
According to discussions below, categories like
Wikipedian violinists shouldn't exist, because the it doesn't help wikipedia. According to that, the following categories and supercategories of Wikipedian Violinists should be deleted:
I don't necessarily agree, but if such categories "don't help wikipedia", then why do they exist? Trying to eliminate any double standards...
Timneu22 (
talk)
10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy close - This is effectively a procedural mass nomination of multiple category trees that fails to consider the individual utility (or uselessness) of each group of subcategories. Moreover, only the parent category is tagged, so a "delete" outcome - if achieved - could not be implemented. With regard to
Category:Wikipedian violinists, one potential use is that a violinist could upload a GFDL-licensed sample of violin music. If that's not a convincing argument for encyclopedic usefulness, I would not object to a nomination of that category. However, a nomination as broad and indiscriminate as this one cannot hope to produce any type of meaningful change.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- I think separate nominations of each category grouping would be more conducive to clear discussion, with two caveats. First, you might want to delay a nomination of
Category:Wikipedians by media interest, as a number of its subcategories are currently under discussion. Second, it might be prudent to not nominate all of the categories at once, but rather to nominate one or two, wait to see how the discussions are closed, and proceed from there.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kate Beckinsale fan/lover
Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy close - Not to send you to another XfD page, but I believe that this would be best dealt with at
WP:MFD. Those commenting below about the WikiProject are only partially right. These days, rather than outright delete a WikiProject, it's sometimes marked as "inactive" or "historical". (As apparently was the case of this one last September.) And since the nom ties the suggested action to the WikiProject's activity status, then that should probably be determined at MFD. That said, as the project is inactive, the category actually is probably speediable under speedy criteria G6. And this closure in no way prevents such an action if it's deemed appropriate. -
jc37
03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Project is inactive and AfD closing is primarily for Admins. Users should not be calling themselves closing participants when, in general, non-admin closures should be an exception not a norm.
AnmaFinotera (
talk)
03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. As co-founder of said project. The second co-founder is on wikibreak, as i just came off of, and is also an admin. We are very capable of knowing when to close an afd. Nominater is just mad that I closed his AFD
nomination.
SynergeticMaggot (
talk)
03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Try some
WP:AGF. The project has been tagged as inactive since September. Obviously the founders are not paying attention to it. Your personal issues with me have nothing to do with it. The category is for an inactive project and thus doesn't need to exist anymore. I also feel regular editors shouldn't be running around claiming to do what is primarily an admin task, but that's another issue.
AnmaFinotera (
talk)
03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- How am I not assuming good faith here?
SynergeticMaggot (
talk)
03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- An accusation that this is a retaliatory CfD is not AGF.
AnmaFinotera (
talk)
03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry to offend you, but thats exactly what I call this. :) Toughen up your skin.
SynergeticMaggot (
talk)
03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- My skin is fine and I didn't take offense. I could care less of your opinion. I'm just reminding you.
AnmaFinotera (
talk)
03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete - This category has several issues, which were brought out in the discussion below.
- First, there's also the precedent of
this discussion and it's "sub-discussions". As such, categorising Wikipedians by website should be limited to those websites which are at least reference-based. (See also:
Category:Wikipedians by website.)
- Second, there is a difference between someone who may "administer" a website, and someone who may be an "adminstrator" of a website. Especially considering that such sites may not have the rules, policies or even the structural breakdown (developers, stewards, bureaucrats, admins, etc) that Wikipedia has. So a rename for clarity would be in order, at the very least (as noted below).
- Then there's the question of how useful this information is. Since the software is essentially available for "free", anyone with a computer (and presumably an internet connection) could become an "admin" at their whim. ("My sister installed this cool software on her computer, and she made me an admin.")
- And also, since we ascribe to the
presumption that admins know at least "some" about the "tools of the trade" (per going through the process at
WP:RFA), those in this category likely would indicate little additional knowledge for use in aiding admins (and others) here. If anything, it would appear to be a "vanity" category, created in the hopes of adding "prestige" to those within. Useless on Wikipedia, because, well: "
Adminship is no big deal".
- So to sum up the discussion below, overall, this category is (
to quote shakespeare) "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". -
jc37
19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who administer other MediaWiki sites
- It's not useful to have a category here of users who administer any MediaWiki wiki.
.ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι.
06:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Completely disagree with deleting this. It is quite helpful — this is a great way for Wiki Admins to ask questions to other Wiki Admins.
Timneu22 (
talk)
15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to "Wikipedians who administer other WikiMedia sites". It's not notable to categorize all users who administer MediaWiki sites, because that could include just about any site, even one a user created himself. Users who admin other
Foundation sites is another story. That's probably what the creator intended anyway.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 16:25, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and disagree with rename. Experience with the software is useful, even vanity setups.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
-
-
- Delete - I think that a category for Wikipedians who administer other Wikimedia sites would be useful, but I don't think that the same can be said for a category for administrators of any site that uses the
MediaWiki software (which is freely available, by the way). Such sites could be used as blogs, forums, attack sites, or something else (e.g.
Uncyclopedia).
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Rename per Equazcion. This definitely has the potential to be helpful, but not as it currently stands.
EVula //
talk //
☯ //
18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- This should probably be limited to Wikimedia sites and subcategorized by more specific details, for example,
Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on English Wiktionary,
Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on French Wikipedia,
Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on German Wikiquote, etc.
bd2412
T
18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Note - I created the category to include Administrators of other MediaWiki sites, not WikiMedia. Thus, the categories suggested here won't cover it. The intention of the category is to list Admins of other Wikis, for Admins to find other Admins — this category shouldn't be related to WikiMedia projects only.
Timneu22 (
talk)
22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If your intention was to make it possible for users of MediaWiki software to find each other and ask for help (as you stated above), that's not what user categories are for. Wikipedia isn't the place to get software tech support. The only way this category can be kept is if it aids Wikipedia somehow. Aiding the Wikimedia Foundation is probably close enough to that. It's certainly closer than aiding MediaWiki users in finding technical help.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 22:18, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- So how does it help to have a catgegory like "this user has a cat" or "this user plays the violin" ?
- Strong delete - Don't need to categorize this. Who cares? This could potentially be anyone who has gone to the effort of starting their own Wiki. Not helpful to the project. I would support a category for those who are admins on other WikiMedia projects, however, but it is clear that that was not the intention of the creation of this category.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Keeep, because it is useful to know who understands MediaWiki. But delete this and numerous other categories if, as Equazcion says that categories like "user has cats" shouldn't exist.
ClintonKu (
talk)
10:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- I just nominated Wikipedians by skill, above, as it is a supercategory of "violinists" category. Trying to be consistent.
- Another Note. I'm in the "wikipedians who understand parser functions category." This is a quite helpful category because I have contacted others in the category or I have been contacted myself when help was needed with something. I'm thinking that this "Admin of other Media Wiki Sites" category will be as helpful.
Timneu22 (
talk)
10:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that the category for users with a knowledge of parser functions is useful because it has direct relevance to the improvement of template on Wikipedia. But how is this category comparable? What knowledge might the administrator of an unspecified MediaWiki site have that could be useful for Wikipedia? Thanks,
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I was leaning toward renaming, but Equazcion sealed it for me; wikipedia is not the place to go for tech support. If you need help with the software,
[2] is probably the place to go. If you need help here, you can ask a Wikipedia admin. If you need help on another WikiMedia site, you can ask an admin there. There is really no need for this category at all. --
Kbdank71
18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. If you need an admin on another site, go to that site. —
Scouter
Sig
16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who like reality television
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename, without prejudice to a deletion nomination for the whole category tree (currently, only the parent is tagged).
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename
Category:Wikipedians who like reality television to
Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - current naming conventions of similar cats. -
jc37
21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - as nominator. -
jc37
21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete it along with all subcategories. (1st choice) followed by rename per nom (and depopulate, since being interested in reality television in general is probably too broad) (2nd choice). All subcategories are "who like" categories, which do not help the encyclopedia. Would possibly support rename of subcategories to "interested in", I suppose as well.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Interest is too vague. Also, "interested in" is longer that "who like". How long do you really want these category names to be? The length of them is getting ridiculous. Shorter names are better names. -
LA @
16:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) stricken @ 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who like MythBusters
Category:Wikipedians who like The X Factor
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Wizardman
17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who like The X Factor - single user category, and per
various precedent, specifically
these game shows. -
jc37
20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as nominator. -
jc37
20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. -
LA @
17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - While not all user categories must revolve around editing articles, they should revolve around facilitating improvement of the encyclopedia (through, for instance, editing of templates). This category does not do that.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Black Falcon put it best, this really does not in any way facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia and is thus just a bit of so much cruft that clings to our project. Seriously, we are not here so fans can find each other, they can do that on myspace.
(1 == 2)Until
17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?
Category:Wikipedians who like Never Mind the Buzzcocks
Category:User en-sco subcats
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: UpMerge all (after 12 days) - Noting that there were no suggestions to "keep". No prejudice against nominating the parent for deletion. -
jc37
17:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:User en-sco-1
-
Category:User en-sco-2
-
Category:User en-sco-3
-
Category:User en-sco-4
-
Category:User en-sco-5
- UpMerge all to
Category:User en-sco
- All of the rest of the national versions of english have been upmerged, per
this discussion. See also
the topical index for more examples. -
jc37
18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- UpMerge all to
Category:User en-sco - as nominator. -
jc37
18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - including
Category:User en-sco (1st choice) followed by upmerge all per nom (2nd choice). Even one category for those who speak Scottish English is too many. There will never be a Scottish English Wikipedia, so the category is useless.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Upmerge all as per nom, with an eye towards deleting the parent category along with all of the other "national" varieties of English as a group, as per VegaDark and my comments in the previous discussion about these categories
here. I suggest upmerging first and then submitting the parent and its siblings as a group to eliminate WAX and OSE wikilawyering at DRV, which is likely to happen, considering the past history of this subject.
The huge blowup last September over these categories was nothing less than a form of nationalism carried into the Babel categories, and has no purpose here. English is English, and there is no ISO differentiation between "British English" and "American English" and "Singapore English" or any of the myriad other varieties that have been quantified by users intent on creating their own little fiefdoms. None of these will ever get a project of their own; the
Wikimedia incubator specifically requires an ISO 639 code for a separate wikimedia project. All requests for non-ISO categorized languages and dialects are directed to the "Incubator Plus" at Wikia, offsite.
Horologium
(talk)
20:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Upmerge all per nom, VegaDark, and Horologium, as well as per existing consensus and precedent.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete - That said, there are two underlying suggestions in this discussion that may have consensus in the near future:
- Merging to
Category:Eguor Wikipedians - This especially since
Wikipedia:Eguor admins makes it clear that one belief core to Eguor editors is: "Adminship is no big deal", thus, if so, there should be no problem in merging this category with that of other editors.
- Renaming this (and the broader cat above) to some more clear name. As it stands now it's a "not" category ("We're not Rouge admins."), and "not-based" nominations consistantly result in deletion.
Though both of the above were brought up in the discussion, and both deserved extra weight, I'm closing this as "no consensus" specifically so that futher talk-page discussion regarding this may occur. Obviously no prejudice against future nominations (especially if no meaningful discussion has occurred in the meantime). -
jc37
18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Note: A discussion has started at
Category talk:Eguor admins. -
jc37
21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Eguor admins
Basically the same argument as demonstrated at
Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008#February 13. (The link directs to the discussion for
Category:Rouge admins, which was deleted.)
Parent5446(
Murder me for
my actions)
12:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Yeah isn't that sad? We have a whole process dedicated to determining whether a link shows up red or blue. Really makes you wonder...
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 15:29, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the
project page is fine and the
userbox is fine, but the category serves no purpose other than being a bottom-of-the-page notice. We can dispute the degree to which either this category or the Rouge category was a joke, but that doesn't change the fact that it affords little or no navigational utility and does not facilitate improvement of the encyclopedia.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per Black Falcon. Category does not benefit encyclopedia.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete; if community consensus is to delete 'rouge', it makes sense that 'eguor' should be deleted as well.
Ral315 (
talk)
11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- In response to AGK, the point is that there's no reason to delete "rouge" and keep "eguor" because the philosophy of "eguor" is more popular. The point is that they're distinctly related, "eguor" having evolved from "rouge". I also fail to see how "eguor" conveys an appreciation that the administrator "has declared themselves to have an active interest in editors who are in exactly the position they themselves are—confused". The category, and the
page, say nothing about this, or anything close to this.
Ral315 (
talk)
09:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep category. My primary argument here is that, unlike Category:Rouge admins (
rest in peace), this category plays a practical, useful role: a resource for confused editors to contact an administrator who has declared themselves to have an active interest in editors who are in exactly the position they themselves are—confused. Whilst CAT:ROUGE did not play any significant encyclopedic role, this category is actively improving the efficiency of the Wikipedia system of operations. As an additional comment, in response to Ral315's post (above), I do not see how the deletion of the rouge admins category should automatically equate to the deletion of the eugor admins category: the topic of each's deletion should be addressed separately, and the individual merits of each category considered separately—not a blanket deletion on everything related to admin status, regardless of any connections in between. Just my thoughts.
AGK
§
17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I think that, on the whole, the connection is stronger than just being "related to admin status": this category was created in response to the ROUGE category (whether to mirror it, poke fun at it, or for some combination of reasons), and its current name both reflects and continues that history. By the way, could you please clarify how the category functions as a resource for editors? (Also, if the category has a practical purpose, perhaps it should be renamed to a title that better reflects that purpose...) Thanks,
Black Falcon (
Talk)
17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per nom and precedent. While it's not as divisive as the Rouge cat, it's equally limited as a useful grouping. As with the rouge cat, I would not be opposed to listification here.
Horologium
(talk)
18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, I disagree that it is of limited use, and agree with AGK regarding its usefulness. That its name is possibly confusing is not a reason to delete it - it is a reason to either rename it (which no one has proposed beyond in passing) or the category page should be edited to clarify its purpose. --
Iamunknown
17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Supporters of Franjo Tuđman
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete. We have enough precedent for categories like this that
WP:SNOW applies, not to mention there is no indication this is a user category which is probably enough to speedy on its own.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Supporters of Franjo Tuđman - delete, politically divisive, only one member, used for political soapboxing.
Fut.Perf.
☼
11:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename "Category:Contributors to the [language] Wikipedia" to "Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the [language] Wikipedia" -
jc37
20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename
Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language to
Category:Wikipedian contributors to other Wikipedias by language or similar
or
"interested in". The category seems to be populated mostly by a userbox that does not suggest any collaborative interest, so I would prefer not to rename it to make it an 'interest' category. For this reason (lack of an apparent collaborative purpose/scope), weak delete. The mere fact of having watched and liked the films is not something we should categorise.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Wouldn't necessarily be opposed to deleting based on BF's reasoning, and now that jc37 has moved the article to (series), that is certainly a better rename option. Don't really have a preference, other than to say that if a category does exist, it should encompass those who wish to collaborate not just on the movies, but all matrix-related articles (such as video games, books, etc.). The addition of "series" at the end makes it seem more geared only towards the movies rather than including the other aspects of Matrix franchise.
VegaDark (
talk)
05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose people who like it will more than likely keep an eye on it, interest is just to vague. Plus, my categories are taking up a big enough space on my user page to have "who like" changed to "interested in" would make it even bigger. It would add 5 characters per "like" category, which is a lot of categories on my user page at the moment, since most don't have user templates in template space. -
LA @
20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename to
Category:Wikipedians who understand rhyming slang. -
jc37
19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Cockney rhyming slang is now a redirect to
Rhyming slang, so this at minimum needs to be renamed to match that. However, this looks like a single-article category, and hence could not foster collaboration, so my first choice is deletion.
VegaDark (
talk)
15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete.
VegaDark (
talk)
15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep but rename. This category is reasonably well filled with users. Have they been asked whether they use it for collaboration? They are unlikely to have the category on their watch list, so almost certainly do not know this deletion debate is happening. Rhyming slang can appear on articles other than
Rhyming slang itself, so the possibility of collaboration is more widespread than you think.
Rhyming slang is also complex and evolves. It often needs help from a friend to understand a new variety of it. This is a useful category and I see no reason to delete it. --
Bduke (
talk)
00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Bduke.
bibliomaniac
1
5
00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in film
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in film - depopulate of all but subcats (making this a parent cat) per previous precedent of "interested in books". Similar to television, below, this is simply too vague in naming to be useful for anything but a parent cat. -
jc37
18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depopulate - as nominator. -
jc37
18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as is I disagree, and there really wasn't any precedent formed from the books discussion. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. --
Ned Scott
05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depopulate per nom. - But with
reservations about "depopulate" noms from now on if we are not able to enforce them.
VegaDark (
talk)
05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose It would force the creation of possibly hundreds of sub-categories. -
LA @
21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, all categories of those interested in a particular (individual) film have been deleted. Only those interested in film series remain.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There are hundreds of
film series. -
LA @
17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Request a suspension of all
Wikipedians by media interest and
Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include
comics,
film,
games,
literature,
music,
news sources,
radio, and
television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. -
LA @
08:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Depopulate, doesn't serve any purpose as it is.
Snowolf
How can I help?
18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Is this a category for Wikipedians interested in the subject of film or for those interested in one or more specific films? Or, is it just a grouping of people who like to watch films? If it is the first, it should be kept. If it is the second or third, it should be depopulated. Given the ongoing discussion concerning the depopulation of
Category:Wikipedians interested in history (see
here), I'm starting to think that we shouldn't depopulate categories unless they are explicitly parent categories (that is, they contain some form of "Wikipedians by" in their title). I would not be opposed to a proposal to rename (i.e. repurpose) and depopulate this category, but I'm reluctant to support depopulation under the current name.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Then that's a problem in naming (which several of these have). Consider the "books as objects" result. I would strongly support a speedy rename of adding an "s" to "film". That simple change should deal with your concern. -
jc37
19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that it's an issue with multiple categories (including, in addition to this one, "interested in television", "interested in books", "interested in history"), but I'm not sure the addition of an "s" to "film" will be enough, especially since it would still leave open the possibility of repopulation of the category. Is there any way that this could be converted into a "Wikipedians by" parent category? (Incidentally, the "books as objects" category is still a single-user category, and the creator did note that he supported deletion if membership didn't increase within a month of creation...)
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- So something like "Wikipedians by interest in films"? (I still think the "s" is important since it helps distinguish between films as finished products; and film as an art; or as a profession; or, for that matter, as an object.) -
jc37
00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Category:Wikipedians interested in television
Category:Phantastic Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans
Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans
Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series
Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang
Category:Wikipedians in Gary
Category:Wikipedians from Billings Montana
Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge
Category:Wikipedians in Allentown
Category:Users that are weird
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete - G1 (nonsense) -
jc37
19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Users that are weird (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Improperly named, and does not help encyclopedia in the least.
VegaDark (
talk)
00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:User enc and all subcategories
Category:Users that also have a WikiAlmanac account
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete as C1 - empty. No prejudice against creation of
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiAlmanac, presuming: a.) creation of a related (cited/referenced) article. b.) interest of 4 or more members. Noting of course that the above does not prevent further nomination at editorial discretion. (Noting also that the creator of the category, and the single "keep" below has been indef blocked.) -
jc37
17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Users that also have a WikiAlmanac account (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
WikiAlmanac is a non-notable Wiki created a mere 7 days ago. In fact, that article probably meets the A7 speedy deletion requirement. At minimum needs a rename to conform to the naming convention in
Category:Wikipedians by website.
VegaDark (
talk)
23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nom.
VegaDark (
talk)
23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as per nom.
Horologium
(talk)
00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom - since the website is still undeveloped and essentially maintained by a single user, it's hard to tell whether this could eventually become a useful "by website" category. However, presently and for the foreseeable future, it is not and the category should be deleted.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as is - It is a website, it is notable, and if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a nice growing infomative encyclopedia, I suggest you keep it.
Nothing
444
00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists
Category:Wikipedians interested in books
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
Category:Wikipedians interested in books. What to do with "books as objects" may be determined by this discussion. (Possibly upmerge to "by interest".) Once that cat is moved, this could be speedied as "empty". -
jc37
18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Ah, here we are,
the other CfD. I guess that means this is a more focused relisting? In any case, keep per my comments there. Also, did someone depopulate this category already? I was pretty sure we weren't discussing an empty one the last time. --
Ned Scott
01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Yes. The "literature" naming is obviously clearer, especially for authors. (Noting that someone else created the cat.) This left a cat that would be empty save for a subcat of a single Wikipedian.
- It's been pretty well established that "Wikipedians interested in books", as a category name, is simply too vague. So this is a question of whether it should exist as a parent category. (To be honest, I nearly just moved the subcat to
Category:Wikipedians by interest, but even after the several discussions, it's still only a single member category.) -
jc37
23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Ah. Well, since no one was really interested in being categorized like this, and it would require a rename (and possibly a change in it's inclusion criteria) to be more practical, I'll retract my keep. --
Ned Scott
09:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who read Tolkien
Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble - single article cat. Should be deleted for the same reasons that the individual video game cats were deleted. -
jc37
18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who play Diplomacy
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Kbdank71
19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play Diplomacy - single article cat. Should be deleted for the same reasons that the individual video game cats were deleted. -
jc37
18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games
Category:Wikipedians who play tennis
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play tennis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category
does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as tennis does not imply either an above-average knowledge of the sport or an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the game. The userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment; there is no need to generate a list of users who play the game. Also see
the discussion for the related "basketball" category.
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:User enc-0 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
0-level category. All others have been
deleted. All the other nonsensical "Cajun English" categories should be deleted as well, but I'll leave that for another nom.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who love Wikipe-tan
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete - apparently with creator's understanding. (As an aside, in this editor's opinion, while the usage of this category is indeed questionable, this doesn't even come close to the least useful category I've seen : ) -
jc37
16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who love Wikipe-tan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
"This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia". One of the least useful categories I have seen in a long time.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- i would like to comment as the author - I thought it is normal practice to do it this way - to create userbox and then category. Well, if there is problem with that, I can delete the category (and the category code in the userbox) manually. --
Have a nice day.
Running
13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Well, it is normal practice to do both (because many userbox creators don't read the relevant guideline), but that's not the way it's supposed to be.
Wikipedia's guidelines for userbox creation state (bold in original): Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default. Userbox creation is generally given much wider latitude than user category creation, and when new and non-functional categories are created, the whole UCFD process has to be spun up to remove something that should not have been created in the first place.
Horologium
(talk)
17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who play sudoku
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play sudoku (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Tons of people have played sudoku at least once, and additionally just because someone plays sudoku does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Finally, this subject is too narrow for collaboration.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Just because someone "likes" Kakuro does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Tons of people play or have played a fantasy sport at least once. Just because someone plays fantasy sports does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contribute to
Fantasy sport. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who want a mogwai
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
krimpet
✽
15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians who want a mogwai (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Absolute nonsense. Was tempted to speedy delete as such.
Tons of precedent to delete, as categorizing wikipedians by desire does not contribute to the encyclopedia in the least.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There could be other Wikipedians who want a mogwai, and if we enable them to find each other, they could collaborate on articles pertaining to mogwais. I'm flabbergasted by this attempt to steamroll the mogwai initiative. For shame. (someone that doesn't like me should save this discussion in case I ever accept an RfA nomination).
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 13:32, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians from Worcester
Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone
Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename
Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to
Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota -
jc37
15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to
Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota
- Speedy rename to expand the postal abbreviation.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Moved to dated section at 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I notice that
Apple Valley, Minnesota has a population of less than 50,000, which has previously been a standard for deletion. I also notice, however, that this category has 6 users, which distinguishes this category from past cases. I would recommend renaming to
Category:Wikipedians in Dakota County, Minnesota to increase the scope of the category to a reasonable size. If no consensus for that, I support renaming per nom. That being said, this should probably be moved to the dated section for further comment.
VegaDark (
talk)
23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- With a population of ca. 45500, it's just slightly below the informal cutoff point. The metro population is listed as nearly 3 million but I doubt that's accurate (I've left a note on the article's talk page), considering that Minnesota has a total population of about 5 million.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- That figure is indeed correct, as the metro area includes a big chunk of Minnesota and a portion of Wisconsin as well. The Twin Cities are not too far from the state border, so their suburbs spill over to the neighboring state. In fact, the most recent census bureau estimate for the metro area is almost 3.2 million.
[6] I have a link to that spreadsheet—the most recent metro area population estimates—on my user page, in the "Links for editing" section, should you ever need to verify figures for any others.
Horologium
(talk)
18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename
Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to
Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts -
jc37
15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename
Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to
Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts
The inclusion of "approved" in this category title gives the illusion of some sort of approval process, which does not currently exist. The category description already explains that having an alternate account is ok if in compliance with
WP:SOCK.
VegaDark (
talk)
23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- How is that a valid reason to support deletion? There are admins out there who don't put themselves in the admin user category (some don't even have userpages). --
Ned Scott
04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Let me spell it out. "What use ..?" - None. "Do we need ..?" - No. "Does it help ..?" - No. "see no need .." - it does not help the Project. I thought that could be inferred from my "delete" comment. --
Bduke (
talk)
05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Rename per nom. --
Ned Scott
06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename. Useful, but I agree it needs a better name. --
Kbdank71
14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename I would very much like to continue having a category of declared alternative accounts. It helps clarify a great many things, and, per BEANS, I am not going to into details. It would clarify even more, if listing were compulsory.
DGG (
talk)
20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename DGG hit the nail on the head...but anyway, the category is needed, and there is no approval process.
Shalom (
Hello •
Peace)
03:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per DGG. This category helps promote transperancy.
Glass
Cobra
22:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus - The main consensus seems to be to close this in order to subsequently have a "broader" discussion. -
jc37
15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: As I understand it, this sort of category is not allowed, to prevent millions of unnecessary categories from being created.
Xyzzyplugh (
talk)
21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This was clearly intended in all good faith but seems a bit overenthusiastic - this category won't harm the encyclopaedia and probably assists transparency.
Orderinchaos
21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Can't care less on the fate of this category, since I do know my accounts, but this is created by the {{
User Alternate Acc}} template, so i'm pretty sure that this is intended that way. Also note that we create a category when we mark sockpuppets, so I don't think there is a problem in marking legitimate accounts. --
lucasbfr
talk
21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy contested; moved to dated section.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I have placed the category into
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. As I see it, we have two options here:
- Speedily close this nomination, perhaps in favour of a more general discussion - at UCFD (in the form of a mass nomination) or on some other discussion page - regarding whether {{
User Alternate Acc}} should categorise user pages, or
- Leave this nomination open so that it can serve as a test case.
- I essentially agree with the nominator's rationale, and only offer the first option in light of the fact that any edit to
Template:User Alternate Acc will affect all subcategories of
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Is there a way that listifying such categories (to one big list of all users and their alternate accounts) will work? I don't like the prospect of how many categories this would allow creation of, but the info should exist somewhere.
VegaDark (
talk)
23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in police work
Category:Wikipedians interested in Achaemenid Empire
Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete all without prejudice for (re-)creation of "interested in" versions. I have restored
Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons for such usage as may be wanted/warranted. The result is "delete" rather than "merge", because the intent of the categories as indicated by the several populating userboxes is clearly "who play", without indication of being interested in collaborating on the topic. This is comparable to
the recent closing of the CCG-related categories. -
jc37
15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Nominating-
Users who simply play these games are probably not interested in contributing to the articles on those games. We already have WikiProjects for at least some of these, as well as an over-arching RPG one, so joining that is preferable to using these categories if you do want to contribute. If you wish to just state the fact you play the game(s), a userbox or comment is fine. At minimum the parent category should be depopulated of individual users as too broad for collaborative purposes, and they should be renamed as 'users interested in' to give some collaborative use, though some of the sub-categories are possibly too narrow anyway. In any case, as I've said, such categories would be redundant to our WikiProjects.
J Milburn (
talk)
00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per nom. "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on". Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize which users have played particular games or not. Stuff like Dungeons and Dragons is probably a large enough topic to facilitate collaboration, but the current category is not named for that. I'd probably support keeping an "interested in" category for that though. As for the others, it looks like they are too narrow even for an "interested in" category.
VegaDark (
talk)
06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment so change all to "interested in", which is presumably the case. Not everyone has adopted the method of working in wikiProjects yet. I dont see why any of these should be too narrow.
DGG (
talk)
06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- What reason is there to presume that "play" = "interested in"? There are a whole host of activities that everyone does, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in collaborating on articles about those activities. I'm not insisting that this is the case with the categories involved in this nomination (I haven't yet taken a look at how they're populated), but I think a blanket presumption regarding interest is more likely to lead to miscategorisation than anything else.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep They are fine as they are. Why are all of these type categories being nominated for deletion just because they do not facilitate collaboration. Why are all of the community building categories being deleted. I don't want to have to go to the article, click
Special:Whatlinkshere, then choose the User namespace, click OK, and then wait for it to show me every user page that is linked to that article just to find out who might play Dungeons and Dragons. I would rather have a category where I can find all of the other players of the game. Please, leave something that builds the community. -
LA @
19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- I have the burning desire to know who else in the Wikipedia community actually plays the game. Interest does not denote experience with the subject. A person who is "interested" may only be interested in making the articles about the subject poor by draining the energy from them or the interest is by tagging every article about the subject for deletion. There are people whose only interest in the subject is to destroy it. I wouldn't object to a category for the
Wikipedians who think Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic. It would keep the players and the objectors seperate. My question is, why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution? I would like know which Wikipedians
play Dungeons and Dragons, are
in Maryland,
use ICQ, and
have webpages. As people have been telling me recently in their objections to a merge,
Wikipedia is not paper. It is nice to know who I can talk to outside Wikipedia about certain subjects. Just because I am
insterested in geology doesn't mean that I am going to edit those articles. I know almost nothing about the subject, I just like looking at the pretty rocks. -
LA @
16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If you read the third paragraph about me on
my user page, you will see that playing Dungeons and Dragons has sparked my interest in many non-gaming fields. -
LA @
16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- You raise a number of points, but all essentially revolve around the question: "Why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution?" My short answer is that Wikipedia is not and should not become a
directory of users grouped by every possible trivial characteristic. We should not maintain lists of people who support Hezbollah, miss Steve Irwin, don't own automobiles, like spicy food, enjoy soaking in
Pepto-Bismol while wearing a sailor hat and clipping someone's toenails, or have any other characteristic that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. (By the way, the first four were actual categories and the latter is a reference to
Rat Race -- a category for that particular fetish has, thankfully, not yet been created.) I think editors should be free to share with others as many of their habits, desires, and preferences as they like on their user page, but there is no reason for us to keep lists on the basis of these characteristics. For a more detailed explanation of my thoughts on the matter, please see
this still-incomplete page.
- That said, my comment above applies to user categories generally and not necessarily to the categories included in this nomination. I am still neutral on most of these categories, as I'm trying to think of whether there is any plausible means by which they could faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. Cheers,
Black Falcon (
Talk)
16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: In my experience, nothing "builds the community" as much as successful collaboration on an article. It is actions and communications that build community, not an impersonal, automatically-generated directory of users. Enforcing the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of gamers or people by some other random personal detail unrelated to the encyclopedia does not undermine community-building. Thus, for me the only question is whether these categories facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, in light of the fact that "who play" does not imply "who are interested in collaborating on articles about" or "who can contribute non-OR encyclopedic content to articles about". Therefore,
-
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Theist Wikipedians
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete - No prejudice against renomination (as in any "no consensus" closure) to discuss this for use as merely as a parent category. -
jc37
04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Theist Wikipedians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category has been nominated for deletion three times already, and I do not wish to restart a debate about whether these types of categories are inherently collaborative. However, I think that prior discussions failed to consider several key issues unique to this category, probably because the prior discussions were group nominations of
Category:Wikipedians by religion or
Category:Wikipedians by philosophy.
- This category has a relatively vague scope, and it doesn't give us any especially useful information about the users it contains. It tells us that they believe in the existence of a deity or deities, but doesn't tell us which one(s). The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities. Moreover, this category is redundant to other existing categories, such as the specific subcategories of
Category:Wikipedians by religion and
Category:Wikipedians interested in theism, and does not make a unique contribution to the encyclopedia.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
jc37
00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I see no problem with this category. I personally believe in God, I don't adhere to any particular religion, and, at least in my country, believing in God is not something "almost everyone does". Stating that one believes in God and not mentioning any religion is a significant religious and philosophical statement in itself that users ought to be allowed to express on par with adherents of various religious and philosophical denominations. __
meco (
talk)
13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not trying to limit anyone's self-expression; however, userboxes and user page notices already serve the purpose of self-identification. What reason is there to maintain a directory of Wikipedians who are theists?
Black Falcon (
Talk)
19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- Weak Keep. On this one, I think that several of the assumptions made here are fundamentally wrong, and the demographics of Wikipedia need to be taken into account. While it is true that a sizable majority of people in the Americas, Northern Africa and the Arabian Subcontinent, and those on the Indian subcontinent are theistic, that is not so for much of Europe and Asia (where Atheism and Buddhism, respectively, are widespread). Further, the demographics here tend to skew towards non-theism; groups such as the Brights are severely over-represented in Wikipedia, and parody religions such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which are largely unknown outside the insular world of the internet) have a lot of interest here. I'd like to see the category turned into another organizational (parent-only) category, with no editors as direct members, but there should be a distinction between theistic and non-theistic beliefs.
Horologium
(talk)
21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep None of our business how WPedians want to characterise their religion. it is perfectly possible that someone may want to characterise himself this way without meaning anything more specific, so I'd keep it a a real category, not just a parent one.
DGG (
talk)
06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, just as valid as
Category:Christian Wikipedians in my mind. Might seem vague, but you could say the same thing about some people's beliefs. --
Ned Scott
19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete - Feel free to continue to "raise awareness" through the (presumably) already existing userpage notices (such as userboxes). -
jc37
02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unlike similar categories for
recent changes and
new page patrollers, this category does not facilitate collaboration. There is no special knowledge or expertise that random page patrollers possess that could be useful for someone else. It's just a matter of clicking "Random article" and editing. The userbox is adequate to convey this information; there is no need to maintain a listing of random page patrollers.
- One could perhaps seek out advice regarding effective techniques for new page/recent changes patrolling (e.g. how to spot questionable articles or edits, whether/how to tag an article or revert an edit, what notice/warning to issue). Of course, all of this information could be obtained by posting a question at one of any number of talk pages, so perhaps the categories are not all that useful after all.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Perfectly good way of improving WP, and I think there's no reason to deprecate it. I thik a lot of people actually do this--many more than list themselves here--and perhaps seeing this will encourage others.
DGG (
talk)
06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per DGG. Raising awareness for a method and encouraging others is a very good and logical reason for a user category, and certainly does help us build the encyclopedia. --
Ned Scott
19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Users who push random buttons (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This is a category for people who are interested in(?) the template mentioned at
Wikipedia:Random Button. This apparently isn't even a Wikiproject (and rightfully so, as I can't imagine you can make a Wikiproject out of that) and as far as I can see serves no purpose to categorize. At very minimum needs a rename to get rid of "Users" at the start, as per standard naming conventions.
VegaDark (
talk)
19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches
Category:Wikipedians who like Devil May Cry
Category:Wikipedians interested in travel
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete -
jc37
02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in travel (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created as
Category:Wikipedians who travel. It was renamed per
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16 in an effort to shift focus toward collaboration, but I believe that the rename may have introduced miscategorisation by placing in this category people who like to travel but have no interest in the subject of traveling (see the category description). In addition, I don't believe that this category is viable even as a genuine interest category, simply because the topic of "travel" is too broad and ambiguous (see
Category:Travel). (See also the deletion discussions for the related
Category:Wikipedians who visit countries and its
child categories.)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete - With no prejudice of creating one with a clearer name, as suggested in the discussion. -
jc37
02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The collaborative scope of this category, if any, is limited to one or a few articles only. Also, judging from the text of the userbox that populates the category (
User:Tilman Piesk/hexadecimal), this seems to be a recreation of
Category:Wikipedians who like hexadecimal (
CFD discussion).
- Delete as nominator.
Black Falcon (
Talk)
18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
VegaDark (
talk)
19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I think, the collaborative scope of this category is not limited to articles like
hexadecimal,
binary,
web colours,
nibble,
byte,
powers of two and things like that, but also includes
logic related topics like
bitwise operations,
logic gates,
truth tables,
logical connectives,
propositional calculus (the
nibbles link them together) and even articles like
Fermat numbers and
Mersenne numbers. Not to forget
BBP-type formulae.
I understand, that the base preference categories have been deleted - to know that someone prefers base 12 or 60 is indeed not really helpful, and the only related article seems to be
highly composite number. But binary numbers with a power-of-two number of digits (that means: hexadecimal numbers) are a intersection of so many fields, that I consider it helpful, to have a category for Wikipedians interested in this intersection.
(By the way: The
intersection (set theory)
matches the four digit binary number 0001, and thus the hexadecimal 1. Just an example.)
So please don´t be too radical : ) The existence of this category is not a step back to things like
Category:Wikipedians who like ternary or
Category:Wikipedians who like hexagesimal. Greetings,
Tilman Piesk (
talk)
15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.