Misplaced Pages

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

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

• Keep. One bad incident doesn't mean the category is bad, it means one user and one administrator each had poor judgment. Ral315 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Creates cabalism = Gone. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ral315. One pointy attempt to suck the fun out of the project shouldn't spoil it for others. GlassCobra 07:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Baby, bathwater, hive of deadly bees, per Black Kite and Ral315. Just because someone who wasn't an admin added himself to it to make a point, and was subsequently blocked for it, is no reason to delete it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - please see this ANI diff and this cat_talk diff I am afraid that many people apparently don't get the joke, or don't get how the joke makes a serious point. It used to be a badge of honor to have a fellow admin put you in this category (that's how it worked, you didn't put yourself in it, someone else did it) for some particularly astute comment, protection, or block that helped stem the tide of single purpose accounts and their POVish articles. Now the category is something that at least 34 non admins think is funny to be in, for some reason. If the category can't achieve the goal it was created for, perhaps its time has passed. Perhaps it's fixable. Perhaps removing it from the administrative supercat it is in (Category:Misplaced Pages administrators by inclination) would be sufficient. Perhaps the cat has to go but the essay could stay. Perhaps they both have to go. I don't quite know any more. It's no longer the same category. WP is no longer the same place, for good or ill, as it was when the category was created. I agree with Black Kite that disruption by editors isn't a reason to delete per se, but it is symptomatic of misalignment. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Make that four, the nominator also felt it funny/important to add himself to the category. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

February 10

Category:Eurasian Wikipedians

Category:Eurasian Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

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

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

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

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages Good Article contributors

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians by text editor

Category:Wikipedians by text editor

Category:Wikipedians who use gedit

Category:Wikipedians who use Vim

Category:Wikipedians who use Textpad

Category:Wikipedians who use TextMate

Category:Wikipedians who use Nano

Category:Wikipedians who use Kate

Category:Wikipedians who use jEdit

Category:Wikipedians who use Emacs

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

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

• Comment Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• I wasn't aware of the by-interest categories. Then yes, I agree that the "Wikipedians who use Emacs" category should be renamed to "Wikipedians interested in Emacs". How do we signal this new suggestion to the closing admin? For want of knowing better: HEY CLOSING ADMIN :-)
• (Emacs is indeed free software, but a merge to "interested in free software" would be too broad - free software has 100 million users while emacs probably has less than 100thousand.) --Gronky (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see this as anything more than "look at me, I use x". Especially when a reason to keep is "People think their editor is important". Well, of course they do, but that doesn't mean you need a category for it. --Kbdank71 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Although there a number of articles related to some text editors, such as Emacs, the fact of merely using a particular text editor does not imply an interest in or ability to contribute to articles related to that editor. That is, just because someone uses a particular text editor does not automatically mean that they want to write about that editor. – Black Falcon 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all This one is actually appropriate to contributing to the encyclopedia. Seeing who uses what in selecting how one wishes to work around here can be a very valuable thing to do. Given the deficiencies of the internal editor, I might well want to ask others about their experiences. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedians with negative experiences with the internal editor? Sounds awful close to being a "Support/Oppose" category. ("Deficiency" is, of course, subjective to the preferences of the users in question, I would presume.) In addition, the current categories don't specify that this is how the editors edit Misplaced Pages, merely that they have a preference for using a certain editor over other editors. - jc37 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why? This isn't about what you're contributing, but how. Would you honestly say to someone, "Wow, I sure would like to help you write that article, but you're using Textpad, sorry. I only collaborate with people who use gedit." No, you wouldn't. What people say is ultimately more important than the tool they use to say it. So I ask, how is this information valuable? --Kbdank71 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

• Deletion of the category doesn't remove the "information", useful or otherwise. It can still exist on someone's userpage. This is about the category grouping. - jc37 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• There's a difference between claiming that something is useful and being able to explain why or how it is useful. If one cannot do the latter, then there is generally no basis for the former. – Black Falcon 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

February 9

Category:Wikipedians interested in actors

Category:Wikipedians interested in actors - Template:Lc1

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang

Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang - Template:Lc1

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement - Template:Lc1

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

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

Category:Wikipedians of Multiracial ancestry

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge as per nom. While I understand what JC37 is saying, I don't think I can agree with the link, which is part of a larger sociopolitical debate; this category does not, in and of itself, espouse any particular philosophy. Horologium (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  That's part of the problem. There simply is no specific criteria for inclusion. Is this a category of those whose parents had different skin colours? Those whose parents had distinctive facial features? And further, what about the generally accepted races themselves. Is there any collaborative use for someone who may be of American Indian and and Taiwanese ancestry to be grouped with someone of Western European and Latin American ancestry? This category is just a big melting pot of subjective additives. - jc37 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both per JC. I'm not seeing how someone of two or more races would be able to collaborate on any article where a person of only one race would not. And it is pretty subjective. How far back can I go to show that I have more than one race in me? And what percentage must each be to be considered multiracial? --Kbdank71 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per jc37. (Both categories are tagged, so there should be no procedural problems with deletion, assuming there is consensus to do so.) In addition to the lack of defined criteria for inclusion, there is also the issue of usefulness. A grouping of multiracial users doesn't facilitate collaboration, and it seems to me that this category is little more than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. – Black Falcon 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per above. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage

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

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

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

Category:Religious pluralist Wikipedians

Category:Religious pluralist Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who use Netflix

Category:Wikipedians who use Netflix - Template:Lc1

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders

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

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

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

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

February 8

Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Ramayana

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who collect challenge coins

Category:Wikipedians who collect challenge coins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

February 7

Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) fans

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

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

Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) fans - Template:Lc1

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

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

• Yes, all of the individual subcategories should be tagged if you want the entire category tree to be deleted, else any deletion would be overturned at WP:DRV (you can ask a bot operator to do it since there are so many -- Cydebot and AMbot do a lot of work with CFD). However, in light of the fact that this discussion has been open for four days and there was some initial confusion regarding its scope, it may be easier to wait until it's closed and start a new nomination then. Another option is to expand the nomination's scope, inform the participants, and relist the discussion to today's date... Black Falcon 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks, I'll wait then and eventually open a proper discussion at a later point. User:Dorftrottel 18:14, February 11, 2008

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

Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism

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

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

Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikimania 2007 Users

Category:Wikimania 2007 Users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Whatever usefulness this category may or may not have had, it has outlived its purpose. – Black Falcon 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or listify Want to find someone who went to Wikimania in 07? Well here ya go. Believe it or not, that can be useful information after the event has happened. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Useful for what? Not encyclopedia writing, at any rate. —Angr 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Listify and delete. A category isn't necessary. --Kbdank71 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, as per Kbdank71. A category is superfluous. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians from Fox Chapel, PA

Category:Wikipedians from Fox Chapel, PA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

According to Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania, "The population was 5,436 at the 2000 census". Only one user in the category despite existing for over 8 months. Too small of a location for a category, if we allowed categories for locations with this few people, that would set precedent for many thousands of similar categories. I think for cities below 50,000 people or so (or whatever consensus decides), categories should be deleted for the individual city and replaced with a category for the county (or in cases of other countries, whatever the equivelant is). In this case, the category would be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In this case, since there is only one user in the category, however, I wouldn't mind deletion either.

• Rename or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The single user in the category already appears in Category:Wikipedians in Pennsylvania. – Black Falcon 08:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per BF. --Kbdank71 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, but would suggest a discussion somewhere about standards for this type of category. 50,000 is way too low a cap, as Florida alone has over 50 cities that qualify. We could end up with dozens of single-editor categories. My suggestion would be to eliminate the concept entirely, and limit it to states or participation in city-specific WikiProjects. YMMV. Horologium (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• While the proliferation of single-user categories makes navigation more difficult and is undesirable, the specificity of "by-city" categories may be useful on occasion. Of course, it's difficult to define a non-arbitrary balance... In terms of a discussion, I think Category:Wikipedians in Ontario could be a good case study. It contains both multi-user categories for large cities like London and single-user categories for small cities like Russell. – Black Falcon 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian donors to Misplaced Pages

Category:Wikipedian donors to Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Don't see how categorizing this is useful unless the Wikimedia foundation plans on soliciting the people in the category for donations. Can't think of any encyclopedic reason to seek out donors, nor do I think it would be used since anyone can add themselves to the category, donor or not. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Listify if the information absolutely must be kept, otherwise delete per nom. I'm sure the Wikimedia foundation has donor lists they can refer to if they want to hit people up for money in the future. If wikipedians want to tell the world they donated, they don't need a category to do it. --Kbdank71 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kbdank71. The category is obviously not oriented toward collaboration, and it doesn't seem to be especially useful in terms of supporting Misplaced Pages administration/fundraising either. – Black Falcon 08:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. This is essentially a vanity category. Horologium (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 6

Category:Wikilibertarians

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikilibertarians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Wikipedians who "generally have a hands-off philosophy about personal userpage content". I agree with this philosophy, but do not feel that this category (which itself does not qualify as userpage content) can foster encyclopedic collaboration. It seems to have fairly little to do with editing philosophy as it relates to articles (see Category:Wikipedians by Misplaced Pages editing philosophy) and reflects an opinion about a fairly narrow aspect of Misplaced Pages. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikilibertarian Wikipedians to match the convention of its parent.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Firstly, I dispute collaboration is the end-all of the Wikiverse any longer. And B, this category could assist libertarians to collaborate on political articles.Wjhonson (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Despite its title, this isn't actually a category for political libertarians. Black Falcon 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious delete since collaboration is the definite end-all of the Wikiverse. User:Dorftrottel 21:44, February 7, 2008
• Delete, there's no such thing as a user category that can foster encyclopedic collaboration. —Angr 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A category for a philosophy regarding userpage content? WP:MYSPACE. --Kbdank71 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Egocentric Wikipedians

Category:Egocentric Wikipedians - Rationales should be obvious, but here's the most basic: there's no need for a category grouping of such Wikipedians. Those who wish to identify in this way may do so with a userpage notice (such as adding text, or a userbox). - jc37 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nom. - jc37 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does not foster collaboration. --Kbdank71 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think a category should be created for every random humorous statement or joke classification; also, this category is partly a case of "Wikipedians by template use", against which there is long-established and consistent precedent. – Black Falcon 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Kbdank. This sure won't help people work together. Wryspy (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mom user templates

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material), see Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Despite a title that suggests that this is a template category, the only content is a userpage. As a template category this would deserve separate consideration but would also be redundant to Category:Family user templates. – Black Falcon 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Mom user templates to Category:Wikipedian moms

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in cat, from a userbox-like link on User:Geaugagrrl. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely to expand to more than 1 or 2 templates. If this is proposed to be renamed to a user category, it should be moved to WP:UCFD. VegaDark (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  moved to UCFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to FM 103.2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to FM 103.2 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. In addition, any possible collaborative merit is limited to just one article, so the category's scope is too narrow. Finally, the category contains only one user despite having existed for 17 months.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Template:DeleteVotePer nom Compwhiz II_(Contribs) 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per precedent at Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Television Station categories. Television stations or radio stations—the transmission medium is irrelevant. Horologium (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who are armigerous

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are armigerous

This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedians who have arms from Canada, Category:Wikipedians who have arms from Scotland and Category:Wikipedians who have arms from the College of Arms

Nominator's rationale: These four categories (which, incidentally, include only one user) do not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Merely having a coat of arms does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in heraldry; in any case, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in heraldry for that.

• Delete all as nominator. – Black Falcon 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all. Per Armiger, "A person can be so entitled ... by virtue of a grant of arms to him or herself." So I can grant myself a coat of arms just...because? I can't see how this would help collaboration. --Kbdank71 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Appears to be a vanity category, rather than a useful topic for collaboration. Horologium (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who participated in YLA

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who participated in YLA - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category does not offer opportunities for encyclopedic collaboration as the main article was deleted following this AfD discussion.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon 01:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per AFD and nom. --Kbdank71 16:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Kbdank. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Silver Surfer fans

Category:Wikipedians who are Silver Surfer fans - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is for fans of a single fictional character and the userbox that populates it does not exactly suggest any interest in collaboration. Since the title could refer to the version of the character in the comics, the film, the video game, or the TV series, a merge into Category:Wikipedians who read Marvel Comics may result in miscategorisation. If there is no consensus to delete, then rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Silver Surfer.

• Delete as nom; else rename. – Black Falcon 00:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just because someone is a fan of a particular superhero does not imply they are interested in collaboration on the topics related to that superhero. For those who are, they should create an "interested in" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Though I'll admit that if this was Batman or Superman (with reference to their many related articles), I might have said "keep". - jc37 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - Per Jc37, comic bigotry must not prevail! Also I'd note there are already several members and apparently they are already collaborating.Wjhonson (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  "Comic bigotry"? I was referring to the many articles directly related to those two characters. (Superman, even has his own WikiProject/Taskforce/whatever you want to call it.) SO, sorry - Silver Surfer doesn't even come close in quantity of articles. And so, no, no need for a category to group Wikipedians for collaborating on Silver Surfer. The page's talk page and/or edit history, works just fine for that. - jc37 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

February 5

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

Category:Wikipedians interested in books - This isn't a nomination to delete the category, but rather to depopulate it for use only as a Misplaced Pages parent category. The cat is populated by several copies (and subst) of "This user is a bibliophile". Ok, so we use/love books. (Yes, I have the userbox too : ) - But I think this is too general a criteria to be useful as a category. (And is rather close to just being an example of an "identification"-based category.) Incidentally, the subcats are currently split into two category groups: by authors and by book series. - jc37 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Depopulate members but not subcats, as nom. - jc37 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate members per nom's reasoning ("too general a criteria to be useful as a category"). – Black Falcon 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate - per nom. A category for users "interested in books" is far too general to be useful. VegaDark (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate and add note to category page explaining that it is a parent category. That information is missing right now. Horologium (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep: as a historian of print culture I must emphasize the distinction between people interested in books for content or authorship, and people interested in books as physical artefacts. As the article Bibliophile says: "a bibliophile loves books, but especially for qualities of format" (my italics). If there are wikipedians categorized as "bibliophiles" simply because they like to read, weed them out of the category. The category as such could be immensely useful. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  Loving books, even "for qualities of format", still doesn't show how such a grouping is useful for collaboration. This is something that may be useful to note on one's userpage, but there's no need for a category for it. - jc37 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Apprentice

Nominator's rationale: Only 5 user categories of "who are fans of" exist. The standard form for templates describing your interests to a book/TV show/band is "who like". ~Iceshark7 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming:

• Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Apprentice → Category:Wikipedians who like The Apprentice
• Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Eraserheads → Category:Wikipedians who like The Eraserheads
• Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Redwall Series → Category:Wikipedians who like Redwall
• Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series → Category:Wikipedians who like Richard Sharpe
• Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Entourage → Category:Wikipedians who like Entourage

• Comment: Suggest that 2 of the proposed renames be Category:Wikipedians who like the Redwall series and Category:Wikipedians who like the Richard Sharpe series to keep the distinctions to the series themselves as opposed to elements of said series. --BrokenSphere 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• In order:

  Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Apprentice to Category:Wikipedians who like The Apprentice

  Delete Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Eraserheads per precedent

  Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Redwall Series to Category:Wikipedians who read Brian Jacques. Else Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read the Redwall series.

  Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series to Category:Wikipedians who read Bernard Cornwell. Else, Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read the Richard Sharpe series. (However, if this is determined to include the television series, then I prefer Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Richard Sharpe series. - "who like" being the broader term - and then it should also be further (re-)categorised.)

  Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Entourage to Category:Wikipedians who like Entourage - Unless it's a competition of skill (such as sports), Television shows are currently "who like". (Though I wouldn't oppose a group nom to "interested in", in this specific case.)

• For books, "who read" is the current convention. In addition, I'm torn between "by series", and "by author", and will likely waver either way depending on consensus. - jc37 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If I have to choose, I'll weakly lean towards "series" over "author" since that was the apparent intent of the cat creators. And from what I can tell from the edit history, the cat creator named the author of the book series, rather than the popular actor of the TV series, so leaning towards "who read...series" for that one as well. - jc37 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per Jc37. I'm ambivalent about a mass renaming of "who like" categories to "interested in" (these categories are often populated by userboxes that do not suggest any interest in collaboration), but I support the current set of changes. – Black Falcon 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Per Jc37 without a preference for the two categories he lists multiple solutions for. VegaDark (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Per Jc37 - I agree. I don't have much knowledge with precedents, so it's best to follow the ways applied in those. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all. None of these categories has any encyclopedic usefulness. —Angr 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

February 4

Category:Wikipedians with diabetes

Category:Wikipedians with diabetes - per precedent. - jc37 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, userbox or notice on user page should be sufficient for self-identification. No encylopedic purpose to specifically seek out other diabetics. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and VegaDark. I was happy to notice that Category:Wikipedians interested in diabetes exists. – Black Falcon 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The category was added to {{User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User Diabetes}} on 22 January; I removed it and it is likely that the category will be is depopulated as a result. Horologium (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Template:DeleteVote Per above Compwhiz II_(Contribs) 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent and users above. Bart133 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as no user population present.Wjhonson (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per my argument at User:Ned Scott/User categories. Again, the past precedent was very weak and did not consider a great many things (such as proven facts about these kinds of categories being useful for collaboration. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. An empty category equals no collaboration. --Kbdank71 21:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Ned Scott reverted my removal of the category from the userbox (which was not originally part of it!), and then AshleyVH changed the included category to Category:Wikipedians interested in diabetes, which may or may not be an appropriate category for that userbox. (I think the category is appropriate, just not with that userbox, since having diabetes does not necessarily equate to having an interest in it.) My original removal (with the edit summary "test") was just that, a test. I was not sure how many, if any, of the users in the category were there because of the userbox. When it totally depopulated after removal, I noted that in my above !vote. Horologium (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have reverted to Ned Scott's version, providing the explanation in the edit summary. I suppose that whether any form of categorisation ultimately remains can be determined through this discussion. – Black Falcon 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support regiving

Category:Wikipedians who support regiving - "Support/Oppose issue" category. - jc37 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as a social issue support/oppose category. – Black Falcon 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in Teeline shorthand

Category:Wikipedians interested in Teeline shorthand - Single article category. - jc37 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Why would Teeline not be a suitable collaboration topic for a User Category but Biology would be (Category:Wikipedian biologists)? --Ashley VH (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's not that it's not a "suitable collaboration topic", it's that a category grouping of Wikipedians isn't needed for a single article. Compare also to the many Biology-related articles. - jc37 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  Point taken and I've created Category:Wikipedians interested in shorthand as a collaborative categorization which spans several article types.--Ashley VH (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  I have moved the new category into an appropriate parent cat; it is now located in Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which includes several other language-related categories. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both this and Category:Wikipedians interested in shorthand for having, like all user categories, no benefit to the encyclopedia. —Angr 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use Gateways

Category:Wikipedians who use Gateways - per precedent - jc37 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A grouping of users on the basis of which company made the computer they happen to use does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Template:DeleteVote per falcon Compwhiz II_(Contribs) 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use HPs

Category:Wikipedians who use HPs - per precedent. - jc37 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A grouping of users on the basis of which company made the computer they happen to use does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Template:DeleteVote per above Compwhiz II_(Contribs) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like The Fugitive

Category:Wikipedians who like The Fugitive - single film cat. Per the precedent of the recent January closures. - jc37 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. As a side note—How did you find this category, Jc37? It's orphaned, with no links anywhere except to this page. Horologium (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (limited scope). Incidentally, I wonder how many people are in the category because they like the text of the userbox rather than the film itself... – Black Falcon 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Clear and Present Danger

Category:Wikipedians who like Clear and Present Danger - single film cat. Per the precedent of the recent January closures. - jc37 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Again, how was this category discovered? Horologium (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (limited scope). Incidentally, I wonder how many people are in the category because they like the text of the userbox rather than the film itself... – Black Falcon 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per CSD G4 (recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion); see Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who does not tolerate harassment. – Black Falcon 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only one user in the category, not useful at all, since Misplaced Pages as a whole does not tolerate harrasment RogueNinja_talk 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moved from CfD as this is a user category. Agree with non, delete. If kept it has to be made grammatical of course - Category:Users who do not tolerate harassment. --Bduke (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as soon as someone finds the old UCFD debate on this- 99% sure this is a substantially similar creation to a previously deleted category. If not, obvious delete anyway as all-inclusive, as this should be presumed. VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ummm...why is this page threatened to be deleted by a non-admistrator?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

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.

February 3

Category:Wikipedians by hardware

Category:Wikipedians by hardware Template:Lc1

Delete - As with Misplaced Pages:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Pentium_D, Misplaced Pages:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Dells and Misplaced Pages:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_HD_DVD, a mother category listing these types of categories isn't going to be much use aswell. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete assuming the 3 subcategories will all be deleted, which looks like the case so far. This will be a C1 speedy as empty once that happens anyway. VegaDark (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and precedent against "Wikipedians by ownership" and "Wikipedians by hardware" categories. – Black Falcon 19:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (or rename) - Wouldn't the same rationale be true for Category:Wikipedians by software as this is not quite the same thing as Wikipedians interested in collaborating on articles about a software type. Has this already been discussed somewhere? --Ashley VH (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite... Some software categories may be useful for collaboration, particularly those that group users by the ability to use software that could be relevant to improving articles (e.g. using a graphics editor to create images of molecules). – Black Falcon 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Then shouldn't these categories be of the type Wikipedians who contribute with... rather than Wikipedians who use... (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who use Gimp)? Furthermore if that is acceptable then why not Wikipedians who contribute with an iPhone? For example it would seem very useful to know which users contribute with a Mac system as the keyboard layout would change how plugins work with a particular wikipedia editor.--Ashley VH (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, and like many CfDs, the "precedent" is set by three or four users. I would support keeping this and have discussion about inclusion criteria. I don't think a blanket ban of "by ownership" is good, because there are likely collaborative categories to be found with some types of ownership. I also find myself agreeing with the points Ashley VH brings up. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's see... At the very least, I might own a toothbrush, a Television set, a radio, a computer, a ], a pair of shoes, a shirt, stockings, underwear, a hat, a monitor, a chair, a table, a desk, an iPod, an automobile, an umbrella, etc. And whie I may think it's interesting to note on my userpage that I own these items, there is no need for a category of all of us who own such items. In addition, ownership does not equal usership. I'll freely admit to owning things that I don't use, or for that matter things which I use which I know little about, or even (more importantly to this discussion) things which I own, use, and may even know something about, but have no interest in collaborating about. That said, please feel free to create Category:Wikipedians interested in computer hardware (or some such name), as that seems to be what you're (Ned Scott) talking about. (Though with no guarantees, of it not being nominated, of course.) - jc37 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (all) - per nom, precedent, and my comments above. - jc37 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by religion and related

Category:Wikipedians by religion

Delete category plus all subcategories except Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Ramayana as it is neutral and collaboration-fied.

Nominator's rationale: While nobody would deny anyone regardless of religious affiliation the opportunity to edit the encyclopedia, it is clear that this category and all of its subcategories can be divisive, is offensive to some segments of the community, and most importantly, grouping users on the basis of interest does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Perhaps the category, after deletion, can be restarted as "Wikipedians interested in religious issues" - with each subcategory adhering to similar naming guidelines. That would clearly be collaborative. This is a good faith attempt to follow precedent in user category organization. Several of these cats are orphaned, some only have 1 user in them, and some were created as a subcat with another subcat below it but both subcats being the same purpose (example:Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians and Category:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians). There's even Category:Universal Life Church Wikipedians. Come on now, ULC? The "church" that ordains anyone, for free, over the internet? Therefore, please also use good faith when discussing. Per Jc37's suggestion below. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like a good faith effort to rid Misplaced Pages of cats that have the potential to divide the community, offend some users, and clearly do not foster collaboration. In any event, I say delete. Jeffpw (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note - This category has been previously nominated for deletion, and the result of the discussion was Delete. However, the category has been restored via WP:DRV according to the information found from the previous nomination and from Category_talk:Wikipedians by religion. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturned via Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 13:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, users have the right to express their religion, and a category doesn't do any harm. Misplaced Pages is not paper. GreenJoe 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• As has been established in many of these cat deletion discussions, this sort of category has the potential to create horrible divisions in the community, and is more for social networking than anything else. Jeffpw (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• As a post script, if you click the link from the various categories, it does not bring you to this section specifically, that should be changed or I'll have to take this to DRV if deletion is decided. GreenJoe 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot when tagging multiple cats to include the UCfD link in the cfd-user template. I'm doing them all now. They are all fixed now. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/delete - Category:LGBT Wikipedians has been recreated, so the arguments of "Why should religion get to keep their categories while sexuality categories get deleted" doesn't 100% apply unless that category is re-deleted. As for this category, I'm leaning towards supporting deletion. Categories are for grouping users to make finding them easier for collaboration on Misplaced Pages pages. For any other self-identification, userboxes or other statements on the userpage should be sufficient. I think that just because someone belongs to a particular religion does not mean that they should add themselves to a Misplaced Pages category, which the current system encourages. The categories, as named, simply state self-identification that can be done on the user page, it gives no implication that the person adding the category to their page would be interested in collaborating on articles related to that religion, which is supposed to be the whole point of user categorization. Unless guidelines for user categories develop stating that certain non-collaborative user categories are acceptable, I can only go with my gut that these type of categories should be named Category:Wikipedians interested in religion x or Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on x religion related topics (my personal preference). Since those who belong to a religion are not necessarily interested in collaborating on articles related to their religion, a rename could introduce miscategorization, so a deletion of all these and creation of "Interested in" cats seems like the best option. VegaDark (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Let's see, we now have over 2 million articles, during the bigger time of which user categories were present. User categories such as the "Taco Bell eaters", "Users who attended underwater basketweaving 101", etc are utter nonsense and should be kept out of the project. However, user categories of religion are more serious. Users who add themselves to them are showing good faith of their background, and it doesn't mean that they edit without consideration of NPOV. The worst POV pushers I have seen never added themselves to a user cat or even used a userbox on their userpage. They simply ramrod their POV with their edits only. Why this fear of user cats? Will the project come to an end if we don't delete them? Why focus on this non-issue when we have red-links for articles that need to be written? While you are at it, why not go and target the portals and noticeboards for the same reasoning you want to delete user categories. My suggestion, find something else to do and stop disrupting the project with the witch hunts. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gee, where were you when they deleted all the gay wikipedian categories? Delete, by the way. Somebody deleted my delete vote earlier. Jeffpw (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, sorry. 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't see that CfD. Also, some of the past CfD's were done rather quickly considering the number of users who could have gave their input. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As a way queer wikipedian whose categories have been repeatedly targeted for deletion for (hmmmmmmmmm) various reasons it seems there might be an elegant solution to migrate all user categories to user interested in ______ rather than a self-identifier which, to me would foster more of the collaborative nature of building articles rather than the perceptions of social networking. In any case the same rules should apply to all. If I self identify as worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any other gods), as being a person of color and into some fetish then my choices should be treated equally as any other wikipedians. Benjiboi 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with a straightforward renaming of these categories, as opposed to deletion of these categories and natural creation of "interest" categories, is that these are identification categories and identification does not automatically imply interest. – Black Falcon 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• As long as all categories are treated equally I guess they should either all stay or all go then. Benjiboi 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless renamed and re-scoped to clearly state collaborative merit. –Pomte 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I would not want to use one of these categories myself, but I think they can be useful for collaboration. Removing them all is also going at annoy a lot of editors without real benefit, although I suspect some people are not even aware that they are in the category as a result of using the userbox. If deleted, all userboxes need editing to remove the reference to a category. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator says these categories "can be" divisive and asserts that they are offensive. If some editor is going to be offended by the fact that another editor adheres to a certain belief system, isn't it better to get that out in the open? Also, didn't we just go through this? Looking back, it was about 7 months ago (seems sooner), but that still seems a bit soon. Has consensus (or policy) changed that much since then, or are we asking the other parent? At the very least, at least the whole group of subcats is up now, rather than cherry-picking as it was last time, so long as it's done to all or none, I think that's fair. I just think it should be none. Ryanjunk (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Come on guys, how often has this been put up for CSD now? Keep per Ryanjunk's rationale. -- P.B. Pilhet 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Nobody is saying you can't shout your religious beliefs from the highest mountain. But you don't need categories to do that. Especially ones that cause more problems than they solve. --Kbdank71 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Could one of the people who thinks these would be better replaced with "Wikipedians interested in..." categories actually make those categories? I'd be more inclined to go along with this deletion if its replacement was in place.DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd create them (as subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in religions) were it not for the fact that they'd all be empty and thus subject to speedy deletion per CSD C1. – Black Falcon 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - In a previous removal of CfD tags, it seems that some cats were miscategorised. (Some that were philosophy/belief, were grouped under religion.) I've fixed that. However, I have not removed the current CfD tags. Further, I would not oppose this nom being expanded to include religious-like philosophies (such as the -deist philosophies), as I noted in the closure below (the apparent source of this nom). If it is not expanded, then those should not be considered to be included in this nom. If it is done, then the date of this nom should be adjusted to when those are included. In addition, it could be argued that taoism is or is not a "religion", and so if the philosophy cats aren't included in this nom, then the taoist cat should probably be split into its own nom. (There are a few others that could possibly be split off for similar reasons.) - jc37 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Worth spending a few minutes of my much needed vacation on. This is a broad enough nomination to ensure we don't single out anyone in particular. Consistency is important and I do believe that these would serve as much purpose as Users interested in... categories as those that have already been moved to such broader categories. There appears to be a consensus per other UCFD's involving self-identification categories that self-identification is not a sufficient reason for a category and as such I believe these should be deleted as well and the editors using them asked to use the Users interested in... categories. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as self-identification categories that do not foster encyclopedic collaboration and are little more than bottom-of-the-page notices. A number of users in favour of keeping the categories have argued that users have a right to express their religion and/or that expressions of religion are not inherently divisive. I can agree with both claims, but that still doesn't tell us how or why a grouping of users based on religion is useful. Although users have a right to express their religion, they do not need a user category to do that (in fact, categories should not just be bottom-of-the-page notices). – Black Falcon 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Knowledge of other people is relevant to encyclopedic collaboration in general, as is a sense of community. I'd never self-identify in any such category here, but I see nothing inappropriate about those who do. There is no evidence that such a category have been used for vote-stacking or tendentious editing. The use is encouraging users, including those who want to express themselves without interfering with the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Initially I was tempted to support the deletion, based on HalfShadow's argument that "this is not a singles bar" (for context and response: ), but then I reflected - if such a notion is an offensive stereotype for LGBT Wikipedians, maybe some religious groups are unfairly steretyped at times as well. Dare I mention Muslims in a lot of Western countries, or Jews in Arabic countries, or...

The argument for these categories is rooted in policy. It's obvious in WP:USERCAT (I know, not widely used) but also found in Misplaced Pages:Userboxes#User categories: "User categories (categories of Wikipedians) are intended for grouping Wikipedians in order to aid in facilitating collaboration on the encyclopedia". Note that this does not say the evidence of its use for collaboration is required, only that it should aid in facilitating collaboration. Now, if I were editing an article on religious intolerance in country X, then it is obvious that Wikipedians who adhere to that religion are more likely to know of acceptable sources of relevant verified material. Note that this is not an argument for those editors adding their own experiences, merely that those editors are more likely to have relevant knowledge that would assist a collaborative effort to improve an article. I am aware that this argument has been made before in relation to the category:Queer Wikipedians. Hopefully this discussion will be evaluated and closed by an admin who won't substitute their own opinion for consensus (as happened previously in similar cases), and will not simply disregard policy-based comment without evidence or explanation. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep and trout slap the lot of you. Re-run the entire ridiculous position that every cat must be collaborative. Why must it? It's one of the most pointy things going. I sure there are better things to be doing than running all these non-collaboration cats over and over and over. Thanks!Wjhonson (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Trout slap Wjohnson for a strong keep with no reasoning. I see you've typed a lot of complaining-type words, but none of them say why you want to keep. :) --Kbdank71 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep if some Wikipedians feel a social need to bond with similar users via such a cat let them. If it makes their stay in Wikispace more pleasant, great. Hopefully, they will be more productive Wikipedians - in the meantime the rest of us can ignore them and get on with editing. --Sansumaria 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)