Misplaced Pages

• For maintenance purposes, the userboxes found are {{User dada}} and {{User:Lewiscode/Userboxes/User Dada-1}} with 2 transclusions total. The category is empty because it was removed from the userbox and the userboxes are not transcluded apart from their creators because they did not make it known. –Pomte 12:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unpopulated category, no article link. Horologium t-c 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:BBW Wikipedians

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:BBW Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Unpopulated category. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes

This category does not provide a foundation for constructive collaboration and thus violates the "Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" provision of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. The only basis for collaboration that it provides is the playing of practical jokes, which hardly serves an encyclopedic end. In short, the user category presents no benefits and may instead be harmful. -- Black Falcon 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Little or no collaborative potential. Horologium t-c 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I would argue against the thought that it doesn't provide a foundation for constructive collaboration, but it may be harmful. bibliomaniac15 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any collaborative merit here. --Haemo 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

June 16

Category:Wikipedians by religion

This nomination includes Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories.

Misplaced Pages is not MySpace. Any page that is not an article should either further the organisation or improvement of articles or "provide a foundation for effective collaboration". In short, all pages should be targeted toward the idea that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Any page that is not may be deleted. Of course, the criteria above are and should be interpreted rather loosely as Misplaced Pages's editors are volunteers and not employees.

Many user categories meet the criteria outlined above. For instance, Category:Wikipedians by access to sources and references and Category:Wikipedians by language aid article improvement via sourcing and translation, respectively. Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories do not. The categories group users by religion, often because a user added one or another userbox to their userpage. However, grouping users by religious identification does not in any way aid article improvement, since identifying with a religious philosophy does not necessarily mean that one has an interest in it. Users can express their religious views via a userbox without having to be classified into a category.

To empty the categories, one would need to:

1. Edit all religion userboxes so that they no longer categorise pages on which they are transcluded, and
2. Edit any userpages that were categorised manually (i.e., not by a userbox) and remove the categorisation (either manually or by a bot) to discourage recreation of the categories.

Please note that I am not advocating the deletion of religion userboxes (per my point about volunteers versus employees). Removing a userbox from someone's userpage is quite invasive and may irritate a lot of people; removing their userpage from a category is a minor edit that may even go unnoticed. -- Black Falcon 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously these stupid things should go. They have no encyclopedic purpose and their only uses are to abuse Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from userboxes-People who do manually add the category are doing it for a reason. Lumping that together with accidentally categorization is inappropriate. And tony, please try to AGF. Making such (clearly unprovable) accusations is absolutely unacceptable Bladestorm 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  By AGF I assume you mean "assume good faith", and the following response is written upon that presumption:

  I hold that the only use for these categories is to abuse Misplaced Pages, and yes I can substantiate that they have been used for the purpose. This isn't to say that those who put them into their user pages intend them to be abused, but that is their only possible use. If you're of a particular religious persuasion, and you think it's in any way relevant to your editing of Misplaced Pages, you should of course write that fact into your user page. You don't need a category for that. A category is required, however to make abusing Misplaced Pages easy. This is why we must delete them. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  You're right that I meant 'assume good faith'. (I don't know why I keep using acronyms. I bloody hate it when other people do it) But it's absurd to say that abuse is the only possible use. What's more, it's an accusation against everyone who lists themselves by religion (incidentally, I am not listed. So this isn't just me taking it personally). But there are countless reasons that it could be useful. The first one that comes to me off the top of my head is the 'Kosher foods' article. The article mentions that hares are not kosher. This is true. However, it's outright wrong in that it states that hares chew their cud, but don't have cloven hooves. Now, that is the supplied reason in leviticus. However, it isn't true. Hares don't chew their cud. So, what do you do? Obviously they still aren't kosher. Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to just start editing the article to start criticizing leviticus. Some sort of rewording needs to be worked out that retains the fact that hares aren't kosher, but that doesn't make it look like Misplaced Pages is asserting that hares chew their cud. There are a couple possible ways to do it, but I'd rather let someone a bit closer to the subject choose the most sensitive alternative. Is this necessary? Of course not. But it seems more cooperative. That means having an article that neither supports a religious view, nor mocks it. As it stands, there's at least one editor involved in the conversation that's either jewish or interested in jewish topics (I don't know which; nor does it matter to me), so there isn't a problem. However, if that weren't the case, then being able to find a jewish editor could actually be a very valuable resource. Even if you disagree, you would surely have to concede that it wouldn't be abuse. Bladestorm 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - I tend to agree with this. Just because someone belongs to x religion, it does not mean they are more likely to collaborate on articles relating to that religion. Such people can create or join existing "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories if that is the case. User categories are used to seek out others in the category, and I don't see what encyclopedic use there would be to seek out users in these categories that "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories wouldn't accomplish better. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Misplaced Pages is, in reality, attempting to create a collaborative encyclopedia by "mail". The fact that the users are required to reach a consensus without seeing or talking to another person is inherently difficult. Any information which an editor wishes to impart about him/herself in order to enhance dialogue should be actively encouraged. It is human nature to build upon a dialogue from common reference points. Any information that might speed this process is beneficial to wikipedia as a whole. Prester John 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your comment that any information an editor wishes to impart is beneficial; I disagree, however, that the category is necessary to do that. The userbox or a note on his or her user page is necessary; those will remain unaffected. --Iamunknown 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • While that's a valid POV, if it's your opinion, that argument applies to all Wikipedian categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No it does not. I think that some information is indeed beneficial to categorize: access to sources, language skills, programming skills; information that can improve Misplaced Pages is then easily accesible ... but religious affiliation is not one such piece of information. --Iamunknown 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then, please explain to me why/how categorizing by language is a valid category for encyclopedia-building while grouping by religion can't be. I honestly don't understand; from where I sit, it sounds like a personal POV.--Ramdrake 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The ability to speak a language implies knowledge of that language. This knowledge can be put to use to translate articles and/or sources. Identification with a religion does not carry with it a similar usable knowledge of that religion, at least to the degree that one could contribute constructively to an encyclopedia (i.e., no original research). Knowledge of a language implies knowledge of a tool. Identification with a religion, as with most other types of personal identification, does not imply any sort of improved ability to edit a particular class of articles. -- Black Falcon 22:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, the knowledge involved in the ability to speak a language is entirely subconscious in the case of one's native language and usually imperfect in the case of a language learned later in life. As such, someone who identifies himself as a speaker of a certain language cannot be assumed to be able to access that knowledge in such a way that contributes to the encyclopedia. The language categories are actually just as useless to the encyclopedia project as the religion and political-persuasion categories are, but as the deletion discussion above (and its DRV) shows, I seem to be the only person who realizes that. The language categories are so popular that people have convinced themselves that they are useful as well. —Angr 07:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Since none of the subcats are tagged, they won't be deleted as a result of this discussion. Part of why we tag pages is so that editors who may be interested in a discussion are notified of that discussion. I, or any other admin, I am sure, would be happy to relist this discussion, if someone would like to tag all the sub-cats for a group nom. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and start tagging the pages and will relist the discussion when I finish. Since there is an agreement on this page that admins "may close discussions to which they have contributed", I'll also volunteer myself to work on emptying the categories and subsequently deleting them (assuming, of course, the discussion ends with a consensus to delete). I do have one question though: When listing categories in the "Empty and delete" section of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working/User, should one list each subcategory individually or only list the parent category? I believe it's the former, but I want to make sure. -- Black Falcon 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Never mind. -- Black Falcon 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)ex
• Strong Keep The reasoning here is extremely similar to that for Category:Wikipedians by language. While sorting oneself in a given category does not mean one is interested in collaborating to articles about the specific faith the category represents, it is indicative that one may be interested or at least knowledgeable in that particular denomination. User categories are those that may help build an encyclopedia; no guarantees of interest should be required or given (these people are volunteers, not employees one can assign). If we are to apply this logic evenly, ALL categories save Wikipedians' interested in X should then be deleted. Anything short of it would be unfair to some categories of users.--Ramdrake 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What you've stated could also be true of professional categories and the like. However, being a member of a religion does not mean one is able to contribute encyclopedic information about it. Please keep in mind that first-hand knowledge (i.e., original research) does not constitute a valid source for contributions. -- Black Falcon 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Being a member of a religion means that one may be able to contribute encyclopedic knowledge, it's not a guarantee, but then the same goes for professional categories: being a member of one doesn't mean one is able to contribute encyclopedically; it merely means one might be able to.--Ramdrake 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Encyclopedic knowledge is that which is sourced by secondary sources. Being a member of a religion does not imply any sort of knowledge about such sources (being a religious leader, on the other hand, does). On the other hand, someone who is a biologist has likely studied about biology and is likely aware of and/or has access to sources on the subject. In any case, the validity of professional categories (which can be disputed) does not directly affect the validity of religous categories. Also, professional categories do not have nearly as much capacity to be divisive as religious categories. -- Black Falcon 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Relisted per jc37's comments above. -- Black Falcon 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep they're all perfectly valid. A religion category is no less important that one on sexuality or political involvement. There's no need to get rid of them. GreenJoe 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The political categories were nuked earlier this month, and if you scroll down the page you will see a CfD on gender (not quite the same as sexuality, but similar in terms of conception and scope.) Horologium t-c 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • GreenJoe, I agree that they are not less important than ones on sex and politics, but the question is: what is the purpose of having them? Users can express their religious and political views via userboxes without being placed in any category. The categories do nothing to advance the interests of the project. -- Black Falcon 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per GreenJoe. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I will ask you the same thing I asked GreenJoe: what purpose do the categories serve? Users can express their religious views without being lumped into one of circa 150 divisive categories. -- Black Falcon 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that I already gave the answer to that one: it is useful as it indicates one may be able to contribute encyclopedically about a particular faith (no guarantees are given, any more than separating people by language or professional occupation). And I don't see how these categories are any more divisive than those about language; they are part and parcel of one's identity, that's all; the vast majority of the world has passed the age of religion wars. Can we discuss these arguments?--Ramdrake 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've responded to the first part of your comment above (in two separate posts), so I will only address the last part here. Religion is far more divisive than language. A person can speak multiple languages, but can have only one religious affiliation. Also, linguistic differences are not nearly as charged as religious differences, since the latter touches on moral issues and issues of faith. The vast majority of the world is not immune from religious conflict and tension. One need only think of current or recent violence and tension in places like India (Hindu-Muslim), Indonesia (Christian-Muslim), Iraq (Shia-Sunni), Lebanon (Christian-Muslim), Nigeria (Christian-Muslim), Northern Ireland (Catholic Protestant), Sri Lanka (Buddhist-Hindu), and so on, to see that religion is still a salient dimension of division and conflict. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bloody hell with it. I'd say keep; facilitates collaboration; makes no advocation of view but someone would invariably say 'well show me; you haven't been doing much with it'. So fuck it. While we're at it, why don't we delete every other user category and replace them with WikiProjects? Blast 16.06.07 2316 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't understand the hostility in your comment? Have I nominated every other user category for deletion? No. Do I intend to? Certainly not! In fact, I've stated above that there are plenty of user categories that are definitely (Wikipedians by access to sources, by interest, by Wikiproject, by technical knowledge, by language, by profession) or most probably (by location, by education, by condition) useful. I have nominated this category for deletion because I think it is (a) useless and (b) divisive. It seems you disagree. I have laid out my arguments so perhaps you would do the same? How does it facilitate collaboration? How does it not advocate a particular (and potentially divisive) view? -- Black Falcon 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm hostile because the discussions that I've witnessed invariably devolve into the same stuff, and to be honest, I expected no less here. That last half-question was, in fact, my current opinion on user categories: I want them gone, if only so we don't have to deal with this any longer; I won't defend this category, although I might have earlier. Blast 18.06.07 2214 (UTC)
• Delete for consistency and fairness. Andries 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if users wish to self-identify, let them. If they fight over religion, block for disruption. Since very few of these fights have ever erupted, it strains credibility we'd have to pre-empt them. -N 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Users can self-identify through various userboxes, which are not included in this deletion nomination. In fact, if anyone was to nominate them for deletion, I would oppose the nomination. The categories, however, serve no useful purpose and thus should not be retained per WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Also, the issue is not that the categories may create "fights", but that they harm collaboration by separating Wikipedians into separate factions. -- Black Falcon 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is helpful to know an editor's background when you are trying to edit religious articles together. It goes to developing NPOV articles. (unless someone thinks a person's religion doesn't influence their writing. 8-) )--CTSWyneken 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that the userboxes, which are what provide information on an editor's background, are not up for deletion. The userboxes will (and, in my view, should) remain. This nomination covers only the user categories. -- Black Falcon 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is the category designation that allows for quick sourcing of knowledge from users and locating those who may be of use to articles within a specific sect. It is this association with their religious articles that will ultimately lead to better, more thorough articles for the information of all. Skabat169 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep They are all perfectly valid and serve as a way of grouping people together who may be interested in collaboration. Kolindigo 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There's nothing wrong with these categories, and I encourage more of them because they are useful to getting to know people here on Misplaced Pages by identifying them with their sex, language, religion etc. The reasons given to delete these categories, in my opinion, are not valid points. Also, these categories are very popular. If we remove one, we have to remove all other similar categories regarding language, political standpoints, etc., in order to be consequential. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:37 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is absurd. Wikipedians cannot be prevented from disclosing their sympathies and proclivities, so why prevent them from doing so in an organized and systematic manner? This request for deletion is the latest in a long lineage of misguided bids to deny Wikipedians the ability to quickly and conveniently describe themselves, which is unambiguously beneficial. The more we disclose, the more honest our endeavor. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I had stopped replying to "keep" comments, but I feel that I must address this one. These user categories do nothing except divide Misplaced Pages editors into different camps on the basis of the controversial dimension of religion. Editors can still "quickly and conveniently" describe themselves through any number of userboxes without resort to any categories. -- Black Falcon 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: You want to remove these categories because you find religion offensive? Seems like bias if you ask me. You don't happen to be atheist, no? EliasAlucard|Talk 09:54 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
      • Uhh ... nowhere did I state that I find religion offensive. I wrote that religious identifications can be potentially divisive. And whether I am an atheist or not is not at all relevant since (1) it has no bearing on the validity of my arguments (see ad hominem) and (2) Category:Atheist Wikipedians is part of this nomination. -- Black Falcon 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, thanks, I know what ad hominem is. Either way I don't think you have a legitimate case here. Your argument is that these religious categories are hurting Misplaced Pages as a whole. Care to give one actual example? Because I have never encountered this as a problem before. What are you basing your claims on? EliasAlucard|Talk 10:12 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
          • That is not my argument. My argument is that: (1) these categories violate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET because they do not aid collaboration on articles; (2) personal self-identification that has no relevance to the encyclopedia project can be done on userpages and does not require any categories; (3) the categories are potentially harmful because they divide Wikipedians on the basis of a dimension that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia (i.e., they unnecessarily create internal factions); and (4) the categories can be misused (e.g., for the purpose of vote-stacking). So, in short, my argument is not that these categories are currently causing harm, but rather that they offer no present or potential benefits and may indeed be harmful. -- Black Falcon 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Taking your points in reverse: 4.) so can any Wikipedian category, since they all, presumably denote potential collaborative interest in some way. 3.) A concern shared by others in the past. Though as I recall, the concerns were more about "comparison". Category names which stated preference and/or negativity (such as: Wikipedian Pastafarians who hate Agnostics). Simply stating what religion the user is shouldn't be divisive in and of itself. (WP:AGF.) 2.) Again, this could apply to any Wikipedian category. 1.) I'm curious as to how you don't think that these cannot aid in collaboration on articles. Anything that can be accused of facilitating "vote stacking" should also be useful in fostering other, more positive, forms of collaboration? - jc37 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
              • In response to your arguments: 4) This one doesn't denote a potential collaborative interest. 3) Simply stating one's religion is not inherently divisive. However, a category that divides Wikipedians on the basis of something that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia is. 2) No, it would not. A category that states that a user has access to university libraries is directly relevant to the encyclopedia as is one that identifies interest in a given topic. Religious self-identification holds no value for encyclopedic collaboration. 1) You're right. The votestacking argument doesn't hold up since these categories are useless for collaboration (whether positive or negative). However, that still shouldn't allow Misplaced Pages to become a social networking forum. -- Black Falcon 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with the nom, having a list of all Wikipedians who identify to be something as vague as Sikh, Lutheran or Sunni isn't helpful at all. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the Keep voters haven't even read what this CfD is about. I considered supporting keep for some of the smaller sub-sub categories (Wikipedian Karaites, Vaishnava Wikipedians etc.), but they are so incomplete that they aren't helpful, too. If someone wants to find other Wikipedians who might be interested in improving articles about one religion, why not just contact the main contributors in this area and create some kind of WikiProject? Malc82 08:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Excellent idea - Which is of course, one (of several) of the presumed uses for these categories : ) - jc37 10:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, yes. But it is a community encyclopaedia, and has a "private" side which is the user pages. Categories like this one are not "troublesome" and the users who form the community use them because they wish to do so. There are 199 people who use the "Atheist" category, and 105 who use the "Bright" category, and 137 who use the "Buddhist" category, and 150 who use the "Roman Catholic" category. And so on. Deleting these categories serves no purpose. It's just another nanny witchhunt. Surely there are better things to do on the WIkipedia than trouble oneself about deleting categories in User space. -- Evertype·✆ 10:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I dislike userboxes and don't have any on my user page. Categories are a more subtle and less invasive way of conveying the same information. Kestenbaum 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Keep" users who are not sure about information on a religon-related article can contact a member of that faith and verify if it is true or not --Java7837 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Information obtained from the personal experience of another user is not a valid source for a claim in an article. Such information constitutes second-hand original research. -- Black Falcon 22:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That is about as argumentative as it gets, and borders on the nonsensical. By this meter, no one's experience or knowledge can validly be used to build the encyclopedia on any subject whatsoever, as it must also be labeled (by the same token) second-hand original research. Can't we just assume good faith and presume that someone might ask the faith-related question to one of the appropriate faith, and knowing what is likely the right answer, be able to seriously narrow down the search for a proper reference (if the fact is indeed deemed in need of a supporting reference)?--Ramdrake 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not argumentative, that's policy. All information must be referenced by reliable published sources. Wikipedians are not reliable sources. As for your second point, adherents of a given religion are generally little help when it comes to "narrow down the search" for sources. The average follower of any given religion is not aware of reliable published literature on the religion. -- Black Falcon 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Even more interesting, what if your question is say (just an example here) a question about Judaism and the user you're asking happens to be a Rabbi? I'd say such information could be considered somewhat more than "second-hand personal experience".--Ramdrake 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How do you know that the editor to whom you've asked a question is really a rabbi and not someone posing as a rabbi? The only legitimate way to source content based on the writings of another editor is if those writings have been published in a reliable source (such as an academic journal). However, this hits on an interesting point. A rabbi probably is, more than the average person, aware of scholarly or religious literature on Judaism. However, in this case, you would need to look in Category:Wikipedians by profession rather than Category:Wikipedians by religion. -- Black Falcon 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then, if you are consequent with your own reasoning, you should recommend the deletion of all user categories, as any information gleaned from the expertise of these users cannot be considered a reliable source, and you can't verify for sure that they are indeed the experts they claim to be. Focusing on just religious categories goes counter to your argument, as it logically should apply to all categories. The fact is NO user category will ensure that the specific person you're asking the question of in this user category is able and competent to answer your question,any question.--Ramdrake 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That does not logically follow. Someone who is a biologist is, by definition, a specialist in the subject of biology. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect that they are aware of and/or have access to reliable published works about biology-related subjects. However, someone who is a Christian is not necessarily (and most likely is not) a specialist in the subject of Christianity. That's where the distinction lies. -- Black Falcon 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, it's what you're saying that does not follow logically: more often than not, religion is based on a well-circumscribed (thus limited)set of written texts and/or oral traditions. It is usually at least as easy, and I would dare say easier for one follower of one faith to be well-acquainted whith his or her holy texts (or traditions, as may be) as it is for a biologist to be cognizant about all fields of biology. The scope of religion being that much more limited, it would be logically easier to master: just take the number of Christians who are as comfortable quoting scriptures as a physicist would be quoting the second law of thermodynamics. This is sounding more and more like you have a specific bias against religions.--Ramdrake 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Let me reply to each of your points in turn: (1) Articles about individual religions should, for the most part, not be based on their respective holy texts (except perhaps to source quotes from those texts). Keep in mind that these sources are hundreds of years of old and that their meaning is the subject of intense controversy among theologians. If theologians can't agree on a specific interpretation, I don't think we should write based on the interpretation of a regular adherent. (2) A biologist can contribute to articles on biology without being aware of all fields of biology, just as a theologian could contribute to articles on religion without being aware of all aspects of a given religion. However, being an adherent does not automatically make someone a theologian. (3) I do not have a bias against religions. Perhaps you will be convinced by the fact that I've nominated all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion (including those for atheists, agnostics, and so on). Or perhaps you will be convinced by the fact that probably less than 10 of my 9000+ edits are to articles about religion. -- Black Falcon 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It is up to the individual user to include userbox on their User Page as a source of identifying one's belief. It can also help to conclude if the user is acting in accordance with WP:NPOV and other Misplaced Pages standards. I do not believe it has any connection with "Misplaced Pages is not MySpace" by itself. Joseph C
  • The religion userboxes are not the subject of this nomination; in fact, I (the nominator) would oppose an attempt to delete them. This nomination is only about the user categories, which I assume were created as a byproduct of template codes being copied and reused. -- Black Falcon 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I understood this thank you. I did not make my original point clear by that. I do not find anything wrong in grouping oneself into a category, which then can be easily found. (I also agree with a lot of above comments made for the "keep" vote side) Having a category makes it easier to find other users who might be interested in contributing to, or creating, an article involving that religion. Joseph C
      • Is there any reason to assume that an adherent of a particular religion has any interest in contributing to articles on that religion? I would guess that at least 75% of Wikipedians are religious; however, a much smaller percentage actually contributes to articles on religion. For instance, I am not a Sunni Muslim, yet I have a (weak) interest in Sunnism-related topics (mostly as an extension of my interest in the Middle East and North and East Africa). -- Black Falcon 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You are correct, however in the case of a smaller religious group membership, by categorizing, it would be far simpler for me to find another in the same group that I could ask (on his or her User Talk Page) if they were interested in helping. Joseph C
          • Just a technical note: it is possible to find the adherents of a given religion by clicking "whatlinkshere" on the template page. See, for instance, this for User:UBX/Christian. -- Black Falcon 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, these user categories won't help build the encyclopedia and can only serve to divide users. —ptk✰fgs 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and please delete those userboxes while you're at it. Let's get rid of this poisonous trash. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tony, two points. (A) There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anyone can gather consensus to delete the userboxes. (B) The userboxes permit editors to express their personal identities. Since editors are volunteers, I think a relatively large degree of leeway should be granted as to what appears in userspace. It's when this extends to the category namespace that I have a problem. -- Black Falcon 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Tony, setting aside your condescending rhetoric ("poisonous trash"? Yeesh!), did you vote twice? If your previous one was only a comment, then you should have labelled it as such (and joined your vote and comment together). As it stands, it just gives the impression that you're trying to pad the 'delete's. Bladestorm 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above--Sefringle 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Three reasons: 1, Not everyone who wants to be identified with a religion wants to clutter their user page with user boxes. If you delete the category, there will be no way for them to identify themselves. 2, The categories are useful to identify potential POV in contributions. 3, There’s no reason to assume that people are being divisive by having a limited number of categories. Last time I checked, anyone can create a category. If one doesn’t exist for your religion, nobody’s forcing you to use an existing one. This isn’t Wikipedians “being categorized” it’s Wikipedians “categorizing themselves.” Final thought: it isn’t “poisonous trash” to know someone else’s religion. Jaksmata 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't see any reason to delete. If someone decides to spam all Muslim users with hate messages, it's that user who is being divisive and inflammatory and should be banned. You can't claim that the Muslim users themselves were being divisive and inflammatory by merely expressing their religious preference. We must remember that all contributors to Misplaced Pages are doing this for purely unselfish reasons, they have nothing to gain by contributing except a feeling of having done a good thing. We must encourage contributors and try to keep them interested. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia written by a community of volunteers and that means the community aspect is at least as important as the encyclopedia aspect. If cultivating that means becoming a little of MySpace, I certainly see no problem with it. Loom91 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User categories deleted out of process

Contested speedy deletions, restored as procedural nomination. These categories were all deleted out of process by Dmcdevit, and they have been contested by other editors. In discussions on my talk page, Dmcdevit has not identified any applicable speedy deletion criteria, and a proposal to create a new CSD criterion for advocacy categories has not so far achieved consensus.
The reasons listed in the deletion log for these deletions was "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.)" However, WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria is clear that "Reasons derived from Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not ... are not part of the speedy deletion criteria". That covers WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; and WP:ENC is not even flagged as an essay, let alone a guideline.

Please note that this is not a matter for WP:DRV, which says "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". There was no discussion of these categories before their deletion, so deletion review is the wrong place.

I have restored these categories and listed them for discussion so that a decision can be made on their merits. Since this is a procedural nomination, I remain neutral. (If any editors feel that any category raises different issues to the generality of these categories, feel free to split this nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I've split the group nom into sections. I've also restored (relisting) my previous listing of the individual categories. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of categories that this user has deleted in this way (looking at his history) and it seems that only some have been restored. What is the explanation for this? Oren0 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's because I listed only those deleted since June 4. Some of those deleted up to that point were the subject of a rather strange deletion review, where the categories concerned were not listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will add here that if we restore the categories under consideration, including Category:Masculist Wikipedians, then as a matter of plain consistency this should also be done for Category:Feminist Wikipedians which was deleted by User:Zscout370 using an identical deletion log entry to Dmcdevit's. Possibly other deletions by this user should also be looked at. Gnostrat 02:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting Category:Feminist Wikipedians back.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: this entire discussion was deleted by Tony Sidaway in this edit because he mistakenly believed that these categories had already been the subject of a deletion review. The relevant DRV preceded these deletions, and even if Tony had been right the appropriate step would be to seek a speedy close, not to simply delete all trace of the discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That was after Jc37 reverted the admin that closed those before (which he nominated). Disputed deletions go to DRV, and should not be simply reversed and lited here instead. Dmcdevit·t 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Disputed deletions are those that went through a deletion process. These didn't. Hence, Jc did the right thing.--Mike Selinker 01:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To the commenters below, the category being empty is not a reason for deletion. You do realize they have been systematically removed from user pages since their initial deletion. –Pomte 08:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, I did not, and this makes me even less happy with the person who removed the categories. I will remove those votes of mine.--Mike Selinker 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• I also was not entirely sure (misunderstood the nature of some of the nominations; the only one I thought was a re-list was the group of political cats), although it doesn't make much of a difference for most of my votes. I have refactored a couple of !votes where my primary contention was that they were empty; the rest of my !votes remain due to other factors. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by political ideology

• Category:Wikipedians by political ideology

• Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is not Usenet, Myspace, Free Republic, or Democratic Underground. (Anyone who disagrees with the preceding statement can click here.) User categorization should only be used to the extent that it aids in writing an encyclopedia. These, however, help and may even encourage POV-pushing. Picaroon (Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I rather think that showing these categories does entirely the reverse of POV-pushing. They show the POV of the individual in a clear and concise way and allow other edits to take that into account. There is nothing messianic or even proselytizing about any of these cats, just a simple statement of where the user is coming from. Galloglass 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Misplaced Pages is not a political discussion forum. Individual editors can still express their views without having to be classified in categories. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all or else rename all. It's a big leap of logic from categories to either POV pushing or political discussion forums, they're not about that. And if there's a perception of POV advocacy (which would apply equally to philosophical and religious categories by the way), we could exclude that by renaming them as "Wikipedians interested in...", which would allow the categories to promote coordination between people with similar interests, without in any way implying that people in those categories need actually be Zog-ists and so on. This might be a compromise that both sides could find acceptable. Gnostrat 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But that's precisely the issue. These aren't people who are interested in Zog-ism, but rather people who identify with Zog-ism. For instance, I'm an atheist, but I've never edited any article related to atheism. The same is true of political categories. Identifying with an ideology is not the same as having an interest in it. -- Black Falcon 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, which could be an argument for broadening categories, but not for deleting them. Interest doesn't exclude a statement of identification. Users who declare an interest in Zogism might also advocate it, or might not. Whatever it says on the userboxes, whether outright Zogist or just interested, they would all place people into the 'interested' category regardless. If people are determined to search out specifically pro-Zog userboxes, they're going to find them whether the categories are there or not. And I can't see how it's relevant which articles you edit in. I'm a Gnostic Pagan libertarian nationalist, but I edit articles in those areas because that's what I'm knowledgeable in. I know the difference between holding a point of view and being able to write about it neutrally. And if people know where I stand, they can compensate for me if I do inadvertently let anything slip through. (They can also get that information from userboxes; it doesn't affect the case for categories either one way or the other. There are other reasons for having categories, such as facilitating cooperation.) Gnostrat 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I can definitely see this playing a legitimate encyclopedic role in some respects; say you're editing an article about Minarchism, and someone brings up a topic that you're not sure about. It would then make sense to contact other Minarchist editors to try and solve your dispute. I don't feel it's being used in that way by most, but the case is there and it's not doing any harm otherwise. --Haemo 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Stuff like this helps to build a community and the community helps to build the project. This is hardly divisive anyways and people will never be soulless automatons. --MichaelLinnear 08:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep These categories are at the heart of wikipedia. In a perfect world we would all be POV free and produce perfect POV free articles. However I have to break the news to you, we don't live in a POV free world and every one of us has a POV. The above categories enable people to show what their own POV is and lets other editors take account of this and amend or change articles accordingly. That is all these categories are, a way of showing the views of the individual editors in a very important area of life: politics. Having spent the last two days browsing all the relevant policies on wikipedia I can find no valid policy reason for their deletion. Galloglass 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Editors can show what their opinions are without categories; it's called your userpage. Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree these categories should be kept. Brain40 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, this is beyond obvious. The only conceivable purpose of any of these is to inflame or push a POV. —ptk✰fgs 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all it is userspace, and users are entitled to their userspace.--Sefringle 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is the category namespace. Editors can still display userboxes in userspace without having to be classified in categories. -- Black Falcon 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And to clarify, user's own pages are not going to be touched at all whether this results in "keep" or "delete", except to remove the categories. Userboxes will remain userboxes. --Iamunknown 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all Next, someone's going to want to delete the religion categories and the Wikipedian by country categories and Category:Gay Wikipedians... where will it end? Divisive? I guess if you want to be offended by something, you could complain. But the divisiveness is pure hypothetical here – "I'm offended because that user is in the United States category... I'm offended because User X is in the Buddhist category... I'm offended because User X is in the centrist category..." Seriously, who says those kinds of things? Who actually has a problem with these types of categories because they themselves find them polemic? And why are the categories an issue, but not the userboxes (or userpages) that can convey this same type of information? It all sounds silly to me, especially considering the "World Citizenship", "Independent", and "Centrist" categories are somehow being portrayed as divisive. These categories are voluntary; if someone does not want to make public their views, that's their prerogative. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize the religion categories were actually up for deletion. Wow. For the most part, divisive can be used to delete just about every user category here (except for maybe "admin/bureaucrat/..." and the language categories). We need to draw the "divisive line" somewhere, but these categories are not across it. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All this fiasco is the work of Wiki-Fascists who can't live with the fact that Wikipedians have varying political opinions. Nothing more than an attempt to censor Wikipedians' opinions and push the POV of the radicals who would like to see us all as uniformalized drones. "Divisive" ? If you don't like living in a democracy where people and Misplaced Pages editors have the right of association, you can just move to China where right of association is almost unheard of. Know that we are NOT one big, happy, loving family; if people want to identify with a group, than it is their right. Am I offended that the category "Communist Wikipedians" exists ? No! It makes no difference to me whether they live or die, someone can create the category "Nazi Wikipedians" as far as I'm concerned, all they'd accomplish is proving to me the kind of garbage that they are. But I won't waste my precious time and energy flaming them and vandalizing their user profiles, because I actually have a life. Something that the instigators of this deletion reign of terror obviously have not. Not that this will accomplish much, as the evil destabilizing forces behind this madness are the ones with the real power. We'll see where this all ends, the future of Misplaced Pages looks grim. --Voievod 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Monarchist Wikipedians

• Category:Monarchist Wikipedians
  • Category:British royalist Wikipedians
  • Category:German monarchist Wikipedians
  • Category:Wikipedians who support the Canadian Crown

• Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all – These affiliations can be expressed via userboxes. There is no need for user categories. These are not categories that further collaboration, as one's political affliation says nothing about one's ability to contribute to certain articles. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians, delete the rest. We don't need to be to specific here, and for the reccord; Germany has now monarch! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians Brain40 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all four, these categories are divisive and do not aid in collaboration. There are plenty of magazines and web fora if you want to connect with other people who have similar opinions on monarchism; Misplaced Pages is not one of these web fora. Picaroon (Talk) 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well if you're getting rid of these political categories (among others) why are you keeping others? Brain40 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:WSPQ Wikipedians

• Category:WSPQ Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Centrist Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Conservative Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Liberal Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Libertarian Wikipedians

• Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all – These affiliations can be expressed via userboxes. There is no need for user categories. These are not categories that further collaboration, as one's political affliation says nothing about one's ability to contribute to certain articles. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Less clear to me, but seems solid enough.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't vote. What does "solid enough" mean? How does this help the encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but I don't need your permission to register an opinion. Regardless, as I said, I'm less clear that these are as useful as direct statements of political position because of the the source of the quiz. But the actual category names seem okay.--Mike Selinker 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: polemical user categorizations according to point of view are harmful to the encyclopedia. These should not have been restored. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just for clarification, did you read Category:WSPQ Wikipedians? While I think you could have valid reasons to delete (such as not seeing a collaborative purpose to these, since they seem to merely be quiz results), I'm not understanding how what you said above specifically applies. - jc37 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Bilge? That's a derogatory term, not a reason for deletion. Why do you think it's bilge? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians

• Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Free spelling on Misplaced Pages is a preference for users to spell all words, except for proper nouns, however they see fit. At the moment a totally unworkable preference and one not practiced. But the preference remains and as Misplaced Pages content is composed of words, I think a relevant category. - Grumpyyoungman01 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's something that an be expressed in a userbox, but (as noted above) it's not workable in an encyclopedia and thus cannot even be used for collaboration on anything other than an article on the concept. Currently, the category has only one editor associated with it. Horologium t-c 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't buy this as a political stance.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, joke category with one member. —ptk✰fgs 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves "jack of all trades"

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves "jack of all trades"

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I consider myself as belonging to this category, but choose not to list myself there as a more precise explanation of an editor's style on their user page is more helpful. Jack of all trades is not a simple enough concept to be given justice by a category, and it seems could only do so with subcategories. - Grumpyyoungman01 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One common defense of user cats is that they help people coordinate article development -- the "I'm good at everything and just as widely interested" category doesn't sound very useful, in that regard. The other option seems to be an ego category, even less appealing for me personally. Category:Wikipedians with giant dicks? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Luna Santin. This category is unpopulated.Horologium t-c 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically "wikipedians who are interested in many things."--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Geek Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Geek Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge Geek/Nerd Wikipedians. Doesn't seem to benefit building a project in any direct way. If we do insist on having a "cutesy" user cat, we may as well limit it to one, rather than two. Just my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, as per Luna Santin. This cat is unpopulated. Horologium t-c 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Agree with Black Falcon. Heptite (T) (C) (@) 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't buy this as a political or lifestyle stance.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see this being used for any kind of meaningful collaboration. --Haemo 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a category that lends itself to collaboration, and could possibly be used as for mischief. The category is unpopulated; maybe a speedy? Horologium t-c 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, me too. So what?--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - impossible to be a collaborative category, it's too vague and useless. --Haemo 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Absurdist Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Absurdist Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Another empty cat. Unclear if anyone was ever in the group. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - an empty such cat seems, um, absurd Mikebar 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Empty category. - G1ggy /_Contribs 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Nerd Wikipedians

• Category:Nerd Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge Geek/Nerd Wikipedians. Doesn't seem to benefit building a project in any direct way. If we do insist on having a "cutesy" user cat, we may as well limit it to one, rather than two. Just my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No different than "Geek".--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Aren't we all =P No real need for category. - G1ggy /_Contribs 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - see my comments for "geek", as Mike Selinker says. --Haemo 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian barefooters

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedian barefooters

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another empty category, with a rather bizarre attempt to link barefoot people and barefoot (unshod) horses. Horologium t-c 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is it possible to speedy all of the unpopulated categories jc37 has discovered? If they are empty, they aren't needed, unless they are being depopulated when they are nominated, which would be a bad thing. Horologium t-c 16:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as having no apparent collaborative merit, and is empty. --Haemo 08:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Pregnant Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Pregnant Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unpopulated category, transient condition. (Wikipedians who are pregnant would require removal from the group upon childbirth). Horologium t-c 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Transient.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - transient, unpopulated, not useful for collaboration. --Haemo 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians with low bone density

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

]

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this category helps build an encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially unpopulated category. One user in cat, now editing under another name, which is not a member of the cat. Not particularly encyclopedic, and no links to an article. Horologium t-c 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - has no apparent collaborative merit; I have asthma -- that doesn't make me an expert, or at all knowledgeable about it. --Haemo 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this category helps build an encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet any test Mikebar 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unpopulated category with no encyclopedic usage. Horologium t-c 16:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians with nits

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians with nits

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This doesn't seem terribly useful, to me, in terms of project work -- users looking to coordinate development of the nits article can use the talk page just fine. Not sure if this may have been affected, but the userbox which seems to have populated this category has very few transclusions -- very small user cats don't strike me as being useful, either, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is something that is trivial at best, transient and not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No idea how this is useful.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - transient condition, no apparent collaborative merit here. --Haemo 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Misplaced Pages? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

June 15

Category:Wikipedians by parenthood

This nomination also includes the following:

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

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

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

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

Category:Great-grandfather Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Category:Great-grandmother Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These user categories fail the requirement of "provid a foundation for effective collaboration" set forth in Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Most of the pages placed in the categories are there due to transclusions of various userboxes. I have no issue with the userboxes (Misplaced Pages editors are volunteers and thus deserve a lot of leeway as to what appears in their userspace), but the categories seem entirely unnecessary. The categories are too broad and non-specific to leave open the possibility of a likely correspondence between identity and interests. I think it's fair to say that biologist are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to biology, but I doubt a good case can be made that mothers are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to maternity. -- Black Falcon 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - Presumably, most of these are a sub-group of Category:Wikipedians who have had sex (plus Category:Wikipedians who have adopted a child, plus Category:Wikipedians who do not have children - for whatever reason). Most of these sound like great userbox material to me, but I have to agree that there is little use for the categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if users wish to self-identify, let them. It's not like it harms the project. -N 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Users can self-identify through various userboxes, which are not included in this deletion nomination. In fact, if anyone was to nominate them for deletion, I would oppose the nomination. The categories, however, serve no useful purpose and thus should not be retained per WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. -- Black Falcon 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely no collaborative merit. Categories are not for personal self-identification; that's what your userpage is for. --Haemo 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• More imbecilic crap. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Being a father and grandfather mysef, I surely want to keep this one. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep per this being a WP:POINT nomination. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominate Category:Wikipedians by language and all its subcategories for deletion. Yes, that's all of the "Wikipedians by languages" categories maintained by WP:BABEL. As with so many categories nominated on this page, these too do not help the encyclopedia and push it in the direction of MySpace instead. In addition, speaking a language is an inherently political act, so the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by political issue, recently confirmed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4, can be taken as a strong precedent. —Angr 20:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Misplaced Pages is a multi-language project. The classification of editors by language helps collaboration efforts related to translation (of sources or of other-language Misplaced Pages articles). So, these categories do help the encyclopedia. Also, speaking a language can be a political act, but it is false to state that it is inherently a political act. -- Black Falcon 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Translation work is provided by WP:TRANSL; translators are found in Category:Available translators in Misplaced Pages. The Babel categories are not used for that. Note especially that being able to speak a language does not imply being able to translate it. Translation takes some training, some skill, and some experience, not to mention the willingness to do the translation. —Angr 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wow. WP:POINT was just incinerated there. Um, Vociferous Oppose, due to common sense. Horologium t-c 21:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What common sense? That it somehow helps the English language Misplaced Pages to know that one person speaks Welsh at a beginning level, while another speaks Moldovan at an intermediate level? No way. —Angr 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Why don't we just delete all user categories then? This classification can help translation and interwiki relations. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said above, Category:Available translators in Misplaced Pages is the category for finding people to translate. The Babel categories aren't for that. They aren't for anything encyclopedic. —Angr 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep WP:POINT. -N 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's not WP:POINT. Unlike the translator categories, which provide an encyclopedic service, these categories contribute only to the MySpacification of Misplaced Pages, as well as being potentially divisive and inflammatory. —Angr 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The speedy closing of this discussion is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 15#Category:Wikipedians by language.

Newspeak categories

• Category:User nws
• Category:User nws-1
• Category:User nws-2
• Category:User nws-3
• Category:User nws-4
• Category:User nws-5
• Category:User nws-N
  • Category:User ns (added before any !votes)
  • Category:User ns-1 (added before any !votes)

"Newspeak"; another joke category whose inclusion in the Language section is doubleplusungood. I'd like to see a consensus where any language that does not have an ISO 639 categorization does not get a Misplaced Pages category. Articles about the language or dialect are fine, but we don't need six user cats for something that appeared in one book. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All as nom. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Into the memory hole, doubleplusunfacilitates wikicollab. —ptk✰fgs 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Doubleplusdelete - There will never be a Misplaced Pages in this language, so this isn't useful. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand Newspeak - It has its own article, and is related to at least two other Orwellian works, and its article offers reference to topical cultural references such as soundbites, and so on. So collaboration usage isn't in doubt. But more than a single category is too much in this case. (You either understand it, or you don't.) One of these days I am going to get around to nominating the hordes of redundant duplicative (and/or babelised) userboxes for "merging" at WP:TFD. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I support the merge/rename/deBabelization if the category is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. It really doesn't belong there, any more than the Internet Slang cat (which is up for deletion as well) belongs there. Horologium t-c 17:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Found a target category. Merge into a single category entitled Category:Wikipedians interested in Newspeak and move to a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is a much better fit. Horologium t-c 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this is not a language, and serves absolutely no collaborative merit. ---Haemo 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please stop wasting our time on this trash. Just take it out and shoot it. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Doubleplusunkeep. AgentPeppermint 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by gender

Category:Wikipedians by gender and its three subcategories organise users by gender: male, female, and transgender. The categorisation of users seems to be almost exclusively the result of various userboxes, listed at the top of each subcategory's page. I think users should be allowed to identify their sex or gender via a userbox, especially since it can aid communication, prevent confusion in comments, and allow the avoidance of "he or she", "she or he", "s/he", "s(he)", and the like. However, I see no purpose to categorising users based on gender. It serves no encyclopedic end and deleting the categories (unlike deleting the userboxes) is not invasive. -- Black Falcon 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This one is not controversial; nobody is going to seach for collaborators by gender. It's another case of userboxen linked with needless categorization. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too broad. –Pomte 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - Here's a fun one. Typically when we have 2 or 3 categories which together are all-inclusive, we would delete at least one, since it's typically a negative or "not" category. In this case, each is "positive cat to themselves, and a "not" category to the others. (This user is female, but not male or transgender; This user is male, but not female or transgender; This user is transgender, but not male or female.) While I can definitely see collaboration possibilities by "extension" (such as on women's rights issues, or even understanding first hand about pregnancy), these are just too "broad". Narrower categories should handle such collaboration benefits (per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (precision)). - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While I generally support basic user data for categories, this is just too big.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - serves no collaborative merit, at all. Incredibly vast self-identification category with no real merit. --Haemo 08:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, user categories should describe groups who will work together on a group of articles. What's the plan here, collaboration on all articles about males? —ptk✰fgs 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User ipa-N

This category, by its Babel convention, is nonsensical, since nobody can claim to be a "native speaker" of a universal phonetics guide. However, considering the other cats on orthography, a strong case can be made for merging this into the already-existing Category:User ipa-5, which identifies the user as being able to contribute at an advanced level. The userboxen associated with both have the similar verbiage ("This user has a complete understanding of IPA" for the -5 cat; "These users fully understand the IPA" for the -N cat). Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:User ipa-5, as nom. Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. I'm not even sure we need a 5-level, as that is reserved for a "professional" understanding. Also not sure these categories should even be in the babel system. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Category:User ipa. This is a language-related category, so using the babel naming convention would seem appropriate, though it only requires a single category and shouldn't be a "numbered" category. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge ipa-N to ipa-5, but leave the rest as they are. People do have different levels of understanding IPA, for instance, one might roughly know the IPA chart for english but not the universal range of symbols, while another might know the whole alphabet but not be able to read it as "fluently" as a third. Numbered categories are helpful here. - Zeibura 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User fr-ca and Category:User fr-qc

The two categories are duplicative, and only two users are listed in fr-ca, which, despite its more general categorization, specifically refers to Quebec French, not a general Canadian French, which could include Acadian French. Recommend merging Category:User fr-ca to Category:User fr-qc. (The question of whether we need fr-qc's six subcats is something that will be addressed in the future.) Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as nom. Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both assuming there are no significant differences between this and French the rest of the world speaks, which I don't think there is. Merge if no consensus for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The fate of these should be ruled by any precedent existing regarding local variants of a given language, like say, American English and British English. These variants differ from idiomatic French by a similar scope, even though they are for the most part mutually intelligible. To answer VegaDark, there is at least as much if not more difference between either Canadian French or Quebec French and idiomatic French than there is between British (idiomatic English) and American English--Ramdrake 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should even have "British English" and "American English" cats - they are both English, one category is good enough. It's rediculous to think someone would need to translate between the two, or any other regional dialect of English, which would be the purpose of the categories. The rule of thumb on these should be "Does the average speaker of language A need a translator to be able to understand a person speaking language B? If yes, then it deserves a category. If no, then it doesn't. Get rid of all these "Australian English", "Southern English", etc. categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See the rationale which has been discussed below at Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion#Category:User en-us-ca and subcats. Some browsing through the ISO 639-3 data indicates that there are only 5 "recognized" variants of French (French, Cajun French, Picard, Walloon, and the extinct Zarphatic; no Quebecois, although it is noted as a dialect) and three of English (English, Scots, and Yinglish, which is by definition a secondary language). Part of the issue is that Misplaced Pages is written, not spoken, and while there may be notable differences between spoken American English and British English, the differences are relatively minor when using the more formal written form one is expected to use in Misplaced Pages. Horologium t-c 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, there are many notable differences between different written forms of English. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well there are two members of Category:User fr-ca. One uses Template:User fr-ca-1, and the other uses User:Laverick Phoenix/fr-ca. The former, then, is in the wrong category (which I'll fix in a moment), and the latter then becomes the only member of the category. How about we sidestep the possibly controversial debate, and just Delete, due to a single member, with no prejudice against it being recreated in the future if it gains 4 or more members? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users that enjoy King of the Hill

"Users" instead of "Wikipedians", redundant to the correctly named Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill - enjoy > like and Users > Wikipedians - per current convention. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge to duplicate category, as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Albanian Wikipedians

Babel categories are supposed to be for languages, not stuff like this. Also redundant to Category:Albanian Wikipedians. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Albanian Wikipedians, per nom. (I wouldn't oppose renaming to Category:Wikipedians from Albania and reverse-merging Category:Wikipedians in Albania, instead.) - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Category:Albanian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Albania. The "from" convention appears to be less common than "in", although I think that "from" is a better wording. In any case, we should end up with only one category. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  We've discussed the idea that eventually all the "...in location" categories should be renamed to "...from location", for various reasons. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User A.M.R. SL and Category:User A.M.R. KB

I'm not exactly sure what these categories are for, but the only pages in them are user subpages of User:A.M.R.. Does not look useful at all. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - More eponymous user categories. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vanity cats. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet Slang Categories

• Category:User IntS
• Category:User IntS-1
• Category:User IntS-2
• Category:User IntS-3
• Category:User IntS-4
• Category:User IntS-5

"These users speak internet slang" - Don't need babel categories for this. There will never be a Misplaced Pages written in internet slang. Not useful. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand internet slang. (Or, alternatively, "...who use...".) This is not a language. Even the article calls it jargon. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I support the merge/rename/deBabelization if the category is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. Like the newspeak category above, this doesn't belong in the language cat. Horologium t-c 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Found a target category. Merge into a single category called Category:Wikipedians interested in Internet Slang and move as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is a much better fit. Horologium t-c 03:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. I think my feelings are clear on this topic (although see above comment). Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - I think this category is mostly a joke. It's not a language, and I'm pretty sure most of the editors using this are not, in fact, interested in Linguistics. --Haemo 08:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• More bilge. Stuff like this should just be speedied. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I disagree for two reasons. First, speedy deleting any category may leave a lot of redlinks, making recreation of the category very likely. Second, "not useful" is a deletion criterion when it comes to categories, templates, and redirects, but I'm wary of it being a speedy deletion criterion, given the inherent subjectiveness of the term. -- Black Falcon 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User Katamari Fortissimo Damacy

"This user listens to Katamari Fortissimo Damacy" - Unsuitable babel category. Katamari Fortissimo Damacy is a soundtrack and not even a band, so even if this were named properly I don't think this would be a suitable category, due to members only being able to collaborate on a single article. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This could be renamed to match other cats under Category:Wikipedians who own albums? - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support NPOV

Everyone should be in this category by default, as this is Misplaced Pages policy. Not useful as all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. This one's a no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Good ol' All-Inclusive Delete - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Everybody should be in this one automatically. Remove category --_Hdt83 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CG 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is sort of like a "duh" category. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if they don't they won't be Wikipedians for long. --Haemo 08:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who worked at WEGL

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author request (CSD G7). -- Black Falcon 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedians who currently work at or have worked in the past at WEGL 91 FM, the campus radio station at Auburn University" - We don't need to categorize based on previous employment, let alone something as non-notable as this. Would set precedent for thousands of other useless categories if kept. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. There are millions of employers out there, we don't need to open up that can of worms. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm just imagining cats for every radio station... Every Fast-food establishment (McDonald's has hired how many employees?)... Or even Wal-Mart... - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Imagine the possibilities... (don't even want to think about the huge mess of categories) --_Hdt83 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Creator's Comment - Delete No problem. I'm OK with moving to speedy deletion. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer

It's great these people survived cancer, but we don't need a category for it. Sets precedent for other "survived" categories such as "Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane", which I don't think we want. Can't see how this category helps build Misplaced Pages, a userbox seems sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per nomNeutral, as per Bladestorm's comment below. This one seems to be a bit more justifiable, but I don't want to see some of its potential progeny. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think "survived" is besides the point. They've had cancer, and, I would presume, may have a bit of an interest, and may know a bit about it. In terms of collaboration possibilities, experiencing cancer is absolutely no different than experiencing a specific location or alma mater or a sport, or a video game or whatever. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: If we allow this, pretty soon we are going to have a whole bunch of disease categories... (Wikipedians with HIV, Tuberculoses, etc.) --_Hdt83 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, we already do. See Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition. Also, perhaps the answer is to figure out a name to merge this and Category:Wikipedians with Cancer, besides the generic "interested in"... ("Wikipedians who have had cancer", similar to the "from location" categories?) - jc37 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize, keep for now - Yes, this one was strongly modeled after similar boxes for other user boxes like psychological conditions. Some of those are downright scary. Ok, I'm all for having a consistent policy but you cannot vote cancer survivors out without getting rid of all medical condition boxes. It may also lend to the credentials of some authors in editing related articles. Besides, let's look at some others like Wikipedians who have Poodles and other fluff. I'd pick cancer as more important than pets or speaking California English any time. Mikebar 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the category meets 2 of the VegaDark principles for a good category: Categories relating to an editor's areas of expertise - Including occupation, education, skills, known languages, and experience. These categories are helpful because they show that the editor already has some "real life" knowledge on certain topics, and other editors may need that expertise to help them edit other articles on Misplaced Pages. Categories relating to interests that a user may want to edit, same reasoning. Mikebar 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you say just because you survive a disease it doesn't make you an expert. There is alot of expertise if you've come to learn a condition, as I have and have helped others so if the strong disagree look into it, it could be pruned to conditional "experts" but that may be as subjective as all expertise in the wikipedia editing realm. Done. Mikebar 10:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference between this and the other categories is that this is for people who survived (and implies recovery) of a ailment, wheras the others are for a current condition. As for your other points, yes, this is a personal experience, but writing based on that experience would be original research. Also the stuff in my sandbox is just a copy of the current UCFD proposed guideline page, I haven't had time yet to modify it to what I think the guidelines should actually be. They may be more likely to collaborate on cancer-related articles, however, so I could see a rename. I don't like the "Survived" part of this mostly, for the reason I brought up in the nom statement - We could start seeing "survived" categories for anything- Car accidents, being shot, any number of the hundreds of diseases out there. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I support any logical change but consider this: if you 'have cancer then you are a survivor and if you are in remission (or "cured") you are also a survivor but a survivor does not "have" cancer (it's gone) so you'd be reducing the group for no good reason, hence the inclusive "survived" encompasses stricken and cured both and that builds the enclucivity such a category would want to embrace. Mikebar 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Presuming you meant inclusivity? Anyway, "survivor" is, of course, welcome in the userbox text. The problem here is that there are category structures, and several editors are concerned that this may be considered "precedent", rather than an exception. This is why I suggested "...have had...", since I presume it would result in the same "inclusivity" that you'd like to see? - jc37 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There's strength in numbers, and if people want to come together like this, how does it damage the project? -N 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is just silly. How does it hurt the project? If you're worried about other possible future categories, rather than this actual one, then wait for those categories to show up and address them when the time comes. But arguements to the tune of, "well, this one isn't so bad, but one in the future might be, so let's delete this one" don't hold any water. Bladestorm 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That is a good point. Changed my vote above to Neutral. Horologium t-c 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. People who have survived cancer probably have researched about it, and have first hand experiences. I would say that it helps the project. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How does this help the project? If you want a userbox, have at it. But a category isn't necessary for cancer survivors to be able to find each other and it doesn't ensure well-written or properly sourced articles. Addressing Category:Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane when it's created will be difficult to do when the Keep crowd points out that we kept Cancer survivors, so that sets a precedent. --Kbdank71 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  If that's the case, would you oppose some sort of rename, which would remove the word "survivor"? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• How about Wikipedian Cancer Survivor - probably whay it should have been Mikebar 11:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like it helps the project. --- RockMFR 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who prefer Misplaced Pages over Citizendium

"I like X better than Y" categories are generally not useful. This isn't an exception. Sets precedent for any number of "prefer x over y" categories if kept. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Another no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Misplaced Pages:Userboxes#Content - since category names must follow the same restrictions as userboxes, per Misplaced Pages:Userboxes#Naming conventions (Wikipedian sub-categories). - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as creator -- Delete if you want. I dont much care. Underpopulated anyway. I am still allowed to keep Userbox though, yes? Anonymous Dissident 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup! No userboxen are deleted as a result of discussions on this page. --Iamunknown 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CG 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no conceivable collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are opposed to instant run-off voting

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

The result of the debate was depopulated and speedy deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All other political wikipedian categories have been speedy deleted and endorsed by deletion review, the only reason this got by was because it was uncategorized. Additionally, this category doesn't help Misplaced Pages at all. Let me also point out that this refers to instant run-off voting in the real world, not Misplaced Pages. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. It's not a useful category, and it's potentially divisive. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to clarify, the deletion "endorsed" was: "Wikipedians by political issue and sub-cats". - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And if this were categorized properly at the time, this would have been in that category, and deleted along with the rest. If this ends up being kept, it would set a double standard. VegaDark (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:User:CWSensation

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, author request Sean William @ 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category for someone's userpages. Numerous similar categories have been deleted in the past, not useful, would set precedent for 4,640,333 other similar categories, one for each user. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, it's a vanity category. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Eponymous category for a user, which should be a speedy deletion criteria. Else we might have: Category:Jc37's userpages or Category:Jc37's favourite articles : ) - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Hey, feel free. I hadn't seen any policy specifically against it, so was doing it for my own convenience. Hadn't considered the ramifications when I did it, and was even admittedly tired at the point that I created it...so by all means!  :) --CWSensation 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD

Another "prefer" category. Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD already exists, and we certainly don't need both categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, as per nom. Duplicate category. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Though I think that the target might be a suitable cantidate for deletion (or at least renaming - "who use"?) as well. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd agree to that, just wanted to get this category out of the way first. VegaDark (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge redundant category. --_Hdt83 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge but to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD. "Support" doesn't make as much sense. If nothing else, 'Support' is saying who you want to win in some battle. 'Prefer' is saying which you personally choose. The former is divisive. The latter is not. Bladestorm 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually "prefer" implies comparison, and can be considered "divisive" as well. - jc37 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Even if so, it's certainly far less divisive than to actively root for one side or the other. At the very least, support is external and preference is internal, no? If possible, I'd like every "Merge" vote to say which name they want to merge to. Bladestorm 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD for the reasons stated by Blade. TJ Spyke 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think the target category is all that appropriate, I just thought the first category was a little worse - How about we merge both to Category:Wikipedians interested in HD DVD? VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  The current convention of Category:Wikipedians by technology and it's sub-cats (and sub-sub-cats) is "Wikipedians who use...". - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rename/Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD. We'll have to nominate the other cat separately, or relist this discussion to include it, otherwise, just rename this one for now, until the other is nominated. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a myspace-style grouping, not something which would help in building an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. No purpose. --- RockMFR 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

June 14

Category:User el?

• Category:User el? translates as "This user does not understand Greek." This should have been nuked with all of the -0 Babel cats, but because of its nonstandard construction, apparently was missed. Delete as per precedent. Horologium t-c 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense babel category level. VegaDark (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - "not" category. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm getting better at it Mikebar 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User en-us-ca and subcats.

Category:User en-us-ca (Wikipedians who speak Californian English). Has six subcats, including one that is not formatted like the others. Do we really need this many cats/subcats for what is, at most, a regional dialect? The userbox is fine, but the Babel-style cats are more needless splintering. Recommend Delete All. I will see what we get for consensus here before submitting the next batch; the English language cats are a fine source of fussy categorizations and bizarre subcats. Horologium t-c 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I've been a proponent of deleting most of these regional dialect categories for a while now. The purpose of the babel category system is to find others who speak a language, you will never need to do this for something such as "Californian English". We should only keep dialect babel categories if the dialect is significantly different from the main language, enough so that seeking out someone who is familiar with that dialect would actually be worthwhile. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Dude, keep. Helps me bond with other, like, people from my state on the project, man. -N 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is what {{User California}} is for. It sorts people who are in or from California for collaboration purposes, and it even has its own nifty little userbox, if that's your sort of thing. Babel categorization is unwieldy even without irrelevant categories; adding more is just throwing chaff in the radar. I have no problem with sorting by location (check my user page and you'll see that), but this is not, IMO, the appropriate way. YMMV. Horologium t-c 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all to Category:User en-us-ca. I don't think we need a babel breakdown for regional dialects, but I do think that a single cat for such dialects is "useful and appropriate". There's a difference between living in a location, and speaking the dialect. Ask any Scotsman who's moved to London : ) - And I will "Weak oppose" spelling out the cat name. It's a language (or at least a language dialect), so no reason to not use the babel formatting convention. - jc37 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In what scenerio would a user actually seek out someone in this category for any purpose that would help the encyclopedia, that seeking out someone in any of the regular en categories wouldn't accomplish? VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This speaks to the next round of deletions I was planning to propose. The Category: user en cat has a huge number of sub-cats that deal with regionalization, by country (Ireland and its two subcats, US and its six subcats, Canada and its four subcats, Australia and its eight subcats, Great Britain, which is tucked into EN-3), by parts of countries (California and its six subcats, New York and its recursive subcat, New England and its recursive subcat, Liverpool/Merseyside) and by other factors ("Lazy English" and its six subcats, "Mixed English"). For those keeping track, that is 51 subcats for one language, and nobody has yet created English language cats for India, New Zealand, South Africa, or any of the other former crown colonies, not to mention Scotland and Wales. All of these might make interesting userboxes, and a case can be made for country cat (one for each) for the nations, but the regional categories have no useful function; people are not going to search through the "I speak New England" category when looking for someone with whom to work on an article. I chose the California one because I (mistakenly) believed that it was not a particularly controversial category with which to start. Horologium t-c 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Totally fer sure Mikebar 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

June 13

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries - Well, I suppose it could be more vague (Category:Wikipedians who visit places), but not much. - jc37 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete along with the 4 subcategories. Millions of people have visited different countries, we don't really need to categorize this. "Wikipedians interested in country x" would be far more useful. I've visited Mexico and Canada, but I'm not interested in collaborating on those articles. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vague category and non-defining subcategories. Doczilla 09:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per VegaDark. ElinorD (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. VegaDark nailed it. Horologium t-c 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too broad a category. Lots of people visit countries. --_Hdt83 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no conceivable collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Disagree with the nom, visiting a certain place is actually less indiscriminate than a country :-). Malc82 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - outstandingly fatuous.  ← Roger →   23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

Moved here, as correct forum for discussion, from Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 13#Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I have no opinion on the merits of the request. Bencherlite 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Template:Lc1 to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - This follows the renaming of, for example, the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article (as discussed here). The proposed name is both shorter and more precise. --rimshots 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to match article name. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as per Rimshots. Horologium t-c 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Babbling Cats

• Category:User rn
• Category:User rn-N

"This user is a native speaker of Random Babbling." - This should be self-explanatory : ) - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice and salt. Babbling, indeed. Horologium t-c 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious delete both - Amazed this got past me for so long. VegaDark (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt est laborum eu tempor eexercitation. –Pomte 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Phn'glui mglwnafth R'lyeh Delete fthagn wathgn.--7Kim 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without the unnecessary babbling. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ðëlété рĕŕ ńơm.--WaltCip 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete How is babbling going to help out Misplaced Pages? We're going to look like fools if we go around babbling... --_Hdt83 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Gibber gerrna - fluurgal urpts an ibbeya polllo retasss ratyp erna dinkut. (Strong Delete for all the above reasons. --Haemo 08:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Spoon Delete, "native" makes no sense, how exactly can one be brought up randomly babbling? - Zeibura 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

June 6

Category:Lennonist Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

We have no article on Lennonism; this category is, therefore, not useful for collaboration purposes. So, it should be deleted. Picaroon (Talk)

• Delete or rename as Wikipedians who like John Lennon. Leaning towards the first, since the userbox is tied to Wikipedians by Philisophy, which is not quite the same thing as liking Lennon. (Leninist, anyone? A majority of the people in this category have userboxes identifying them as Leftist, Socialist, Marxist, or Communist. heh.) Horologium t-c 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No, please. Come on. Saying you're "Lennonist" is no different from saying that you're a hardcore leftie.--WaltCip 02:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'd almost say it's patent nonsense, but there is no deadline. YechielMan 06:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:User Pages Cleanup

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages since it will take almost no additional work than deleting it would. VegaDark (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User Pages Cleanup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, somehow I just don't see this as useful. -- Prove It 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• What is it? If that is unanswered, delete. --Iamunknown 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike the mainspace, the userspace is not a politburo. Boldness before policy.--WaltCip 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Only one userpage, and most people won't care what your userpage looks like (some users don't even want one!) -- Hdt83 _Chat 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages. Consider renaming target cat as well; perhaps Category:Wikipedians requesting userpage guidance or something similar. Horologium t-c 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

June 5

European Union categories

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

The result of the debate was Delete Category:European Union Wikipedians and Keep the other two categories separate. See also: this userbox, and this userbox, and this userbox; and noting that they (or some such userbox) have also been subst: to userpages with one of the three categories, leading to the current confusion. When removing the category from userpages, the edit summary should probably note one or both of the other two as alternatives. - jc37 10:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy discussion moved from above: VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:European Union Wikipedians & Category:Wikipedians from the European Union -> Category:Wikipedians in the European Union (per Category:Wikipedians by location and Category:Wikipedians in Europe convention) --Iamunknown 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Category:European Union Wikipedians contains people who support the EU ({{User:Hexagon1/EU}}), and they do not necessarily live in the EU. –Pomte 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I see that User:Hexagon1/EU2 and User:Hexagon1/EU3 are similar. Then the original category name, "European Union Wikipedians", doesn't make much sense either. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (per the Category:Wikipedians interested in a region convention). I'll move this down to a nom now. --Iamunknown 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Done, see #European Union categories. --Iamunknown 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union → Category:Wikipedians in the European Union

Category:European Union Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union

I listed these in the "speedy nominations" section earlier, but an editor pointed out that Category:European Union Wikipedians maintains a category for those who "support" the European Union. This is an inappropriate category, as it promotes diviseness (a category for those who "do not support" the European Union would also have to be created) and does not follow the "Wikipedians" naming convention. Thus I recommend moving it to Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (c.f. Category:Wikipedians interested in a region), as both Wikipedians who support and do not support the European Union are, by default, interested in it. --Iamunknown 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rename both as nom. --Iamunknown 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:European Union Wikipedians is already used in POV userboxes. It is useless to recreate it with a new name (and, presumably, migrate all the usages of it), when the same userboxes and the same users draw on it: it is the same POV grouping. Anyone interested in creating Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union is welcome to, but users who want to be categorized in it, and not the advocacy grouping, should move themselves of their own accord. Dmcdevit·t 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Wikipedians from the European Union and Category:Wikipedians in the European Union separate as they are (they're different things, a user may be from the EU but not be in the EU). Same for Category:European Union Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union, different things with perfectly clear meanings, no need to get them mixed up.--Húsönd 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the "clear meaning" surrounding Category:European Union Wikipedians? I for one don't know what the criteria for inclusion is: are citizens allowed? supporters? opposers? those with interest? --Iamunknown 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

June 4

Category:Anti T2 Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not" category. Does not help Wikipedians create the encyclopedia. --Iamunknown 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Iamunknown 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Was planning on nominating this myself, T2 has long not been a speedy criteria, so this is essentially obsolete as well. VegaDark (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per redundancy. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although there are several categories which are suitable, but dont help build the encyclopedia, this one is just taking it too far. Regards --The Sunshine Man 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, the issue is dead and the category is useless. —ptk✰fgs 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This might be borderline reasonable if this were actually a current issue, but T2 is a year dead. Also, this will look to people who supported it like a "haha, we won" category. -Amarkov moo! 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who dispise the New York Yankees

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Ryulong. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not" category. It does not help Misplaced Pages to know who does not like something. All similar categories have been deleted in the past, we have set enough precedent so stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

June 3

Category:User AIM-Able

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cat description is "Understand AIM talk but don't like it anyway? You're at home here". We don't need a category for people who "understand AIM talk but don't like it". This is useless and also a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - "not"-category. This seems to be a userbox that didn't need a category. - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Nope, apparently it's a category that should have been a userbox : ) - jc37 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Horrific user cat. I'm not even sure why they would even create such a category. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - encourages grouping of dislike, should be a CSD if we ever had it.--WaltCip 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think the argument from negativity is weak; especially since the emphasis on not liking is both flippant and less than central. However, my devious and creative mind can concoct no plausible, farfetched, or even amusing argument for how this category enhances Misplaced Pages. :) --7Kim 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete utterly useless category that doesn't help improve WP in any way—arf! 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vega has said everything that needed to be said ;-) «Snowolf » 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another userbox with an accompanying category that should never have been created. Horologium t-c 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

l337 Categories

• Category:User 1337
• Category:User 1337-1
• Category:User 1337-2
• Category:User 1337-3
• Category:User 1337-4
• Category:User 1337-5

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Useless babel categories. There will never be a Misplaced Pages written in Leet, and users will never have a legitimate reason to go looking for others in these categories. Hence, having categories for this is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - I almost suggested Merging all to Category:User 1337, but after reading over Leet, this appears to just be a type of Substitution cipher, commonly used in concordance with internet slang. Shouldn't be a babel cat, and shouldn't use the babel naming convention. However, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a single category for usage/interest. - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. The Babel categories should be used for serious purposes. Regular userboxes are more than enough for expressing love of the leet "language". nadav (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. First cut for a user category based on language: it must be a language that somebody somewhere actually speaks or signs (though I'll stretch that to include sufficiently notable dead or extinct languages). Navajo, Lakota, and Church Slavonic all make this cut. Even Quenya and tlhIngan Hol, arguably. 1337$p3ke? No. --7Kim 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• DeLEET ;-) Placeholder account 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• |)31337 all, per nom and above reasoning-—arf! 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wonderful nomination. These categories are totally useless! «Snowolf » 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Change to non-babel category (oh, and nice work there Arf!) G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• C:/WIKIPEDIA/DATA/USERCATEGORIES/deltree Babel:1337 -nom--WaltCip 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. --CA387 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Gah. Delete all. Horologium t-c 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think a 1337 wikipedia would be cool. "th1s 1s t3h m41n p4g3 0f w1k1p3d1a 4 1337 p33ps." -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to get off-topic, but the folks on meta who deal with interlanguage development have decided that wikis in fictional languages such as Klingon have been unsuccessful and should not be continued. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most basic is that the whole wiki becomes like a garbage dump that kids like to play in but adults stay far away from. :) I suppose you could create a Leet subpage in your userspace. YechielMan 06:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Category:User 1337. Repaxan 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Marksmanship Ribbon

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

The result of the debate was Delete Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Marksmanship Ribbon. All the others are redlinks which don't have a deletion history, so, if nothing else, I couldn't determine if they had been tagged. - I'll be happy to modify this closure if someone would like to provide links : ) - jc37 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Would set precedent for a category for every award/medal given out by every country's army, which we definitely don't need. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, or rename to something like Category:Wikipedian marksmen. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• If delete, these categories should be depopulated:

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Afghanistan Campaign Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Armed Forces Reserve Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Service Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Iraq Campaign Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Korea Defense Service Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Kosovo Campaign Medal

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: National Defense Service Medal

• These medals have one article each, which do not themselves list the notable recipients, and there are quite a lot more of them, so I think they are better merged into Category:Wikipedian military people or appropriately named new subcategories.
• Delete. I could seriously get behind a category called Category:Wikipedian decorated veterans, including a judicious number of subcategories for highly notable decorations, but not a category for every specific decoration. Even then, I would reject it if it focussed specifically on U.S. military veterans. --7Kim 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. I personally qualify for more than one of these, and some of these are not really awards, per se. Everyone who was in the US armed forces since 11 September 2001 received the NDSM and GWOT service medal (except for those who received the GWOT expeditionary medal), and several others are not difficult to get. Additionally, as pointed out above, it opens the door to a flood of other potential cats, from all countries. Better to keep the more general "served in the army/navy..." categories, and save the awards for userboxen. Horologium t-c 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians With MyCoke Points

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, only populated by deleted template. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the least useful user categories I have ever seen. And that's saying something. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete (How about S&H Green Stamps? : ) - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians Who Had An Atari 2600

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

The result of the debate was Delete - as empty, per creator's action. - jc37 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Another useless category. We don't need to categorize users based on previous ownership of items. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Former ownership as a basis for a Wikipedian category would seem to be a bad idea. Possibly rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Atari 2600 games. Or perhaps create the latter category, and offer it to those removed from the former category. (For accuracy of inclusion.) - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  I created the new category, but it seems that the creator of the populating userbox already removed the category. - jc37 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedian Kids Next Door Operatives

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, only populated by deleted template. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have Category:Wikipedians who like Codename: Kids Next Door. Categorizing "Operatives" is nonsense. Only user in the category is already in the latter, so no need to merge. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - though cute : ) - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians owned by Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers. - jc37 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category name speaks for itself. No joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers (or "...who love..." which is the other pet variant naming convention, and matches the category's introduction). - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename Yeah, ok. DBD 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per jc37. "Who love" is less exact than "who own" in this case. –Pomte 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How useful is Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers and must we then accept Category:Wikipedians who own $BREEDs for every value of $BREED down to and including Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen and Labradoodle? Even though I don't think we need Wikipedians by ownership of dog breed I'd let it go by, except that the category name points more clearly to a joke than to a serious attempt to categorise Wikipedians in this way. --7Kim 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename - with this name, there should be no one in the category (well...hopefully ;)) G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - zero encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. MER-C 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per jc37, dogs are owned by people, it's only cats who can own people. DuncanHill 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename although cute Mikebar 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - why is owning a dog breed an encyclopedic attribute which could help us out here? I own a cat, and I don't know boo about them beyond that they eat and throw up a lot. --Haemo 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who love knowledge

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar to the recently deleted "Wikipedians interested in general knowledge" category, this is potentially speedyable. Potentially all-inclusive and not useful. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's a little different than being interested in general knowledge, but not much... - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, again — perhaps we need "Wikipedians who suffer déjà vu" :-) Korax1214 08:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy D - We have a list called List of Wikipedians. -- FayssalF - 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per FayssalF. --7Kim 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above users. -- _Hdt83 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:SpamCop Users

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename, uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:SpamCop Users to Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop per convention in Category:Wikipedians by software. Resurgent insurgent 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

June 1

Xbox

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

The result of the debate was delete xbox live, rename xbox 360. VegaDark (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox Live to Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox Live games
• Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox 360 to Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox 360 games

Per such discussions as the one below.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose rename of Xbox Live, support rename of Xbox 360. Xbox live is an online service, and therefore there are not exactly "games" for the feature, as would be expected.--WaltCip 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Xbox live category, rename 360 category. Don't need a category for those who play Xbox live, a category for that would only facilitate collaboration on 1 more article than its parent category, so it is unnecessary. Don't upmerge, since both regular Xbox and Xbox 360 use Xbox live and there isn't any way to know which applies to each user. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose rename of Xbox Live, support rename of Xbox 360. - sounds good to me, per the reasons above. - jc37 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) - Oops, I meant to say Delete Xbox live. - jc37 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Me too.--Mike Selinker 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Xbox live, Rename XBox360. Horologium t-c 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Nintendo

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated. VegaDark (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS games
• Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo GameCube to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo GameCube games
• Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo 64 to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo 64 games
• Category:Wikipedians who play Wii to Category:Wikipedians who play Wii games

Per such discussions as the one below.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No "Nintendo" Wii? That would seem to go along with the rest of them. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unlike the other consoles, "Nintendo" does not appear to be part of the name "Wii". I think "play the Wii" is more correct than "play Wii", as in the article. –Pomte 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely not "Nintendo Wii.--Mike Selinker 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have an idea- Why don't we just go with the article name for all these game categories? VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Games" isn't really necessary. Some PS2 games are also Xbox games are also GameCube games. It's the console that's in the spotlight here. However, without "games" they'd need the article "the". Either way, go with the article name. –Pomte 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unless you're juggling the joysticks or something, you're not playing with the console. It's merely a means to an end, ie. playing games. It's just shorter to say "...who play <console> games", than to say "...who play games on the <console>". (and we also avoid the "on" vs "using" debate : ) - Oh, and support using the most common name, which, presumably, should be the same as the article. - jc37 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Going with the article names means following the nomination as is.--Mike Selinker 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians by number of edits

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

The result of the debate was nuke from high orbit --Kbdank71 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Relisted due to additional tagging 2 days into the discussion) - jc37 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Category:Wikipedians by number of edits
  • Delete Category:Wikipedians with over 2,500 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 10000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 15,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 15000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 20,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 20000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 25000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 30,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 30000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 40,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 40000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 45,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 45000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 50,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 50000 edits
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians with over 100,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with more than 100000 edits

Note: "...5,000 edits" has already been deleted as empty by User:Anthony Appleyard. - jc37 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: Now all target categories listed, as well as Category:Wikipedians with over 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits, and Category:Wikipedians by edit count have been tagged with the proposition to delete all edit count categories being brought up. VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete as listed above, as nominator. - jc37 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Category:Wikipedians by edit count, Category:Wikipedians by number of edits, and all subcategories in each except for Category:Wikipedian edit archive. These edit count categories are essentially useless, and have been deleted before without a DRV overturning the deletion since (so these are technically speedyable). If no consensus for this, merge as nominated (and delete all empty categories in Category:Wikipedians by edit count as well as Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, which is nearly all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nuke from high orbit, burn at the stake, stomp and piss on the ashes, then delete. ^demon 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete promotes a bad thing. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've been waiting a while for this nomination, but I didn't have the guts to do it myself. All Wikipedians are equal, even if some have more edits than others. :) YechielMan 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Note: Since the target categories are not tagged, they won't be deleted as a result of this discussion. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  I've tagged the remaining categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Ok, I've relisted, since it's gone beyond the first day of discussion. - jc37 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. Perhaps some useful purpose can be offered for ranking Wikipedians on number of edits, but I don't see it. Cred and staus in the Misplaced Pages community shouldn't be a matter of raw number of edits. --7Kim 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, as inappropriate, but calmly. DGG 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Tough call for me, since lots of people seem to want these. But it's an abomination to use a neutral system to track users' supposed superiority over others. Leave the infoboxes for those who want to track their contributions, but no categories.--Mike Selinker 11:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Especially since there's no way to weigh many edits to tighten up grammar and punctuation against relatively few edits to produce good strong articles -- both kinds of contributions are valuable. "25,000 edits" is all but meaningless, and no ranking system should be based on meaningless data. I'd be concerned, too that promoting ranking on edit count encourages trivial or reckless editing, and may lead to excessive edit churn. --7Kim 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep When it comes down to it these categories keep getting deleted and recreated over and over again and it is much more valuable to have them well-organized, uniform and easily located than to fool ourselves into thinking that editors don't keep track of the number of edits they make. I would also comment that putting a CFD notice on the categories will not lead to a concensus involving those in the categories, only those who patrol the deletion discussions hoping to "nuke" things that don't fit thier view of wikipedia as some kind of eutopia. I will be notifying those who requested this particular feature be added and I only hope that these are not deleted without the input of those in the categories. Adam McCormick 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  "I would also comment that putting a CFD notice on the categories will not lead to a concensus involving those in the categories..." - Well, as this is the process for all XfD (CfD/AfD/MfD/TfD/etc) discussions, you might want to find a relevant talk page or Village pump page to discuss that concern? - jc37 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Delete Rereading the nomination it is proposed to consolidate categories, which is fine with me, the tags on some of these are wrong though. I would not support removing Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits as they both work with {{User contrib}} which is the source of this nomination in the first place Adam McCormick 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's also worth noting that the categories that users are assigned by using {{User contrib}} have many more users in them who are not showing up. Adam McCormick 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Haven't been deleted? -- FayssalF - 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete these categories. They are against the spirit of a collaborative project and imply that having lots of edits has some inherent value. If they keep recurring, keep deleting them. Croctotheface 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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