This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.42.141.76 (talk) at 00:15, 2 June 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:15, 2 June 2007 by 68.42.141.76 (talk) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Speedy nominations
- If you have a legitimate candidate for speedy rename/merge/delete, place them here instead of under the date.
- If something listed here is not a clear case for speedy, please re-list under the current date.
New nominations by date
- Please list new nominations at the top of the list for today's date.
June 1
Xbox
- 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)
Nintendo
- 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)
Category:Wikipedians by number of edits
(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)
- I've tagged the remaining categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:39, 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)
May 31
Category:User iu...
Nonsense babel category. "These users wish to speak Inuktitut". Essentially a 0-level category, since this is for people who don't speak the language at all. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --67.101.72.26 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Perhaps I am misreading it, but it would seem that this category is for those "who wish to speak", not for those "who wish they could speak". So it's not a 0-level category. It sounds more like it's their preference to speak it. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, it is still useless (unless we want one of these for every language preference people have) and shouldn't be in the babel system at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Userpages under construction
"A category for people who feel that they don't have a completed userpage. Yet." - We don't need a category for this. Nobody is going to have a reason to go looking for userpages that are under construction. Looks like the category was created simply for the sake of being associated with the template. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I've noticed these templates to be categorized for some time before this category was even made. The previous category for these templates was Under-construction templates, which even included these userpages, and so an alternative catergory was made in order to clean up the category a bit. Does this mean that the userpages should be moved back to the original category, or should we prevent these templates to be categorized in any way at all? ~IS7 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Userpages under construction have no need to be categorized, with the possible exception of drafts of articles (Category:Articles actively undergoing construction contains some of these). So the template {{User page construction}} should not categorize any userpages at all, because there's no navigational value in grouping together "incomplete" userpages - who'd want to look at them? –Pomte 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Noting this this previous discussion, which seems to be similar in context. However, I don't ser this as a recreation, by any means. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete since techincally all Misplaced Pages, including user pages, are currently "under construction" by definition of the wiki. If no connsensus to delete, consider a Merge to Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just Delete, as I'm pretty sure that having an userpage under construction doesn't tell that would the user actually need any help, and the purpose of the template would also become very misleading. ~IS7 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User ot
Category:User ot-1
Category:User ot-2
Category:User ot-3
Category:User ot-4
Category:User ot-5
"These users would like to be able to speak more languages", "This user would like to be able to speak many more languages", etc. etc. Knowing who wants to speak more languages is not useful to Misplaced Pages at all. The only possible useful one is the last one, stating "This user is a professional translator of one or more languages". It isn't all that helpful without knowing what languages they translate, however, and such a category shouldn't be in the babel system if deemed keepable.
- Delete all except possibly the last one, which would need a rename to something like Category:Wikipedian professional translators as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all and merge Category:User ot-5 to Category:Wikipedian translators as they have the exact same scope. –Pomte 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all to Category:User ot, except Category:User ot-5, which should instead be merged to Category:Wikipedian translators. I think knowing that someone wants to learn how to speak more languages is useful, and at the very least shows interest in languages. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does such a category belong in the babel system though? At least move it to Category:Wikipedians who wish to learn more languages or something (even though I still fail to see how such a category would be useful). VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree with a rename. How about renaming to Category:Wikipedians who would like to learn more languages. (Due to potential for abuse/divisiveness, "wish" is probably not a good word to use in Wikipedian category names.) - jc37 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does such a category belong in the babel system though? At least move it to Category:Wikipedians who wish to learn more languages or something (even though I still fail to see how such a category would be useful). VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User rot13
Category:User rot13-2
Category:User rot13-3
Category:User rot13-4
Category:User rot13-5
Don't need categories for this invented language. There will never be a Misplaced Pages written in ROT13, nobody will ever have a use for going through such categories to find people. Category:User rot13-1 does not currently exist, but this should set precedent for that category as well. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all - per ROT13, this is a Substitution cipher, and not a language at all. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Qryrgr nyy cre abz. –Cbzgr 03:06, 1 Whar 2007 (HGP)
- Delete all. As noted, this is not a language, but a cipher. There are not, nor will there ever be (I hope), Misplaced Pages pages written in ROT13. Klingon or Quenya, perhaps. ROT13, no. Makes a fine userbox (in line with the ones about Nadsat, Newspeak, and Bullshit), but not a category. --7Kim 09:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May 30
Category:Wikipedian edit archive
- Rename Category:Wikipedian edit archive to Category:Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits - Following "Lists of..." naming convention. - jc37 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename as nominator. - jc37 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian bassists
Delete as redundant to Category:Wikipedian bass guitarists, which is used to disambiguate against Category:Wikipedian double bassists. –Pomte 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks redundant. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with reservation. Needlessly reduplicative redundancy is a bad thing, even to the point of not being good, and should be deleted and removed. I will, however, accept this category as a supercategory containing Category:Wikipedian bass guitarists and Category:Wikipedian double bassists -- then it would serve as a the category equivalent of a disambig page. Otherwise, it must go. --7Kim 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User Hrkt-0.5
Nonsense babel category level, only whole numbers please. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to 1-level cat as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and the user can choose which subcat of Category:User Hrkt they wish to be in. –Pomte 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per VegaDark and Pomte. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User en-sg-2.5
Nonsense babel category level, only whole numbers please. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to 2 or 3-level cat as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The template can categorize users into level 2, as that appears to be the closest level of proficiency. –Pomte 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to level 2. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per VegaDark and Pomte. - jc37 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User en-6
No 6-level categories, please. Says the same exact thing for 5-level, and should be merged. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:User en-5 as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - professorial is professional, unless I'm missing something. –Pomte 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - Except for different colors, means pretty much the same thing. -- Hdt83 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as author. The command of the English language exhibited by some of the so-called "professionals" sporting Category:User en-5 is sorely lacking. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages can't police user cats to determine who actually belongs in what category, and the solution isn't to continually make higher and higher babel level categories based on the personal opinion that people in the previous level don't qualify. You are also arguing that this be the only 6-level babel category allowed, what makes this so special? VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I write articles off-Wiki for teaching purposes on the nuts and bolts of English (TEFL). There'll be plenty of others around here who can make similar claims. Roger 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- This doesn't explain how the 5-level category wouldn't suffice. VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The groups don't compare the same things. En-4 is about familiarity/comfort. En-5 is about social context. En-6 is about depth/breadth of knowledge.Roger 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- This doesn't explain how the 5-level category wouldn't suffice. VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Having En-5 is redundant enough; there is no need for more of this nonsense. What's next, En-7, "academician level"? En-8, "inventor of the English language"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - What the other 5 mean may need to be redefined (and so, arguing whether 5 is different than 6 is pointless). But, do not create 6th level babel cats, if you please. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need to start promoting grade inflation in the Babel boxes. If people are breaking the system by overstating their proficiency in English (as the author suggests above), then we need to change the system in a basic way, not apply this kind of Band-aid. --7Kim 09:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles
Classic "not" category. Categorizing by things we don't own does not help Misplaced Pages in any way. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The category text implies that these users are interested in Template:Sustainability and Energy Development, but that's not necessarily the case given the userbox text. –Pomte 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The ubx was modelled on the {{User Sustainable Living}} ubx. The green background and earth were meant to signify interest in Sustainable living. --DieWeibeRose 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- If Rename is a permissible vote, I so vote, else my vote is Delete. My problem isn't so much with the category itself as the negative and indirect framing of the category name. If we're going to categorise Wikipedians, the meaning of the categorisation should be affirmative and direct, not based on the implications of the category. And ideally as short as possible. Category:Carless Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians who practise sustainable living would be good by me, but not the name the category currently holds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7Kim (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007.
- "Carless Wikipedians" would still be a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure; there are nots and nots. It seems to me a little simplistic to say "The name contains a negator (e.g. non- or -less) and the category is therefore a 'not'-category." Category:Non-redhead Wikipedians is unacceptable on its face; Category:Wikipedians who practise non-western medicine is clearly acceptable. And does either its (approximate) synonymy with Category:Wikipedians who do not enjoy sex or the negator a- render Category:Asexual Wikipedians invalid? If one becomes listed under Category:Carless Wikipedians it is because one has made a point of not owning a car, either by manually categorising oneself or by using a template that automatically does so (that is, it is an opt-in category); so the category becomes limited to those who do not drive cars for an articulable reason. A similar argument applies to non-smokers. If there is, for example, an articulable difference between "non-smokers" and "people who do not smoke" (and I feel there is -- that "non-smokers" have made a conscious choice to reject smoking whereas "people who do not smoke" may simply have never taken up the habit), then it's not quite so obvious that Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians is a not-category. I'm not arguing against avoiding not-categories, just against using that principle as a mechanical rule rather than a guideline that alerts us to cases that then must be judged on their own merits.
- --7Kim 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- We allow some "not" categories, but only ones that are beneficial to the encyclopedia. For instance, Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators. The whole reasoning behind having the "not" category rule is that not categories almost always do not help Misplaced Pages in any way. For instance, it does not help Misplaced Pages in any way to know who does not own a car, or who does not smoke. It doesn't help Misplaced Pages to know who consciously made the decision to not smoke. It does, on the other hand, help to know who is interested in topics that have enough articles for such people to collaborate on. If a "not" category can help Misplaced Pages, then I wouldn't mind it existing, and I don't think categories are mechanically nominated just because they are a not category. The whole purpose of user categories is to improve the encyclopedia, which I believe this category does not, under any name. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Very well, then. If what you're saying is that utility to Misplaced Pages is the criterion for distinguishing a not worthy of keeping from a not worthy of deletion, then there's no further need to discuss the not question here -- lack of utility to Misplaced Pages is a stronger and more interesting objection that can justify deletion on its own. --7Kim 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- We allow some "not" categories, but only ones that are beneficial to the encyclopedia. For instance, Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators. The whole reasoning behind having the "not" category rule is that not categories almost always do not help Misplaced Pages in any way. For instance, it does not help Misplaced Pages in any way to know who does not own a car, or who does not smoke. It doesn't help Misplaced Pages to know who consciously made the decision to not smoke. It does, on the other hand, help to know who is interested in topics that have enough articles for such people to collaborate on. If a "not" category can help Misplaced Pages, then I wouldn't mind it existing, and I don't think categories are mechanically nominated just because they are a not category. The whole purpose of user categories is to improve the encyclopedia, which I believe this category does not, under any name. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- --7Kim 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure; there are nots and nots. It seems to me a little simplistic to say "The name contains a negator (e.g. non- or -less) and the category is therefore a 'not'-category." Category:Non-redhead Wikipedians is unacceptable on its face; Category:Wikipedians who practise non-western medicine is clearly acceptable. And does either its (approximate) synonymy with Category:Wikipedians who do not enjoy sex or the negator a- render Category:Asexual Wikipedians invalid? If one becomes listed under Category:Carless Wikipedians it is because one has made a point of not owning a car, either by manually categorising oneself or by using a template that automatically does so (that is, it is an opt-in category); so the category becomes limited to those who do not drive cars for an articulable reason. A similar argument applies to non-smokers. If there is, for example, an articulable difference between "non-smokers" and "people who do not smoke" (and I feel there is -- that "non-smokers" have made a conscious choice to reject smoking whereas "people who do not smoke" may simply have never taken up the habit), then it's not quite so obvious that Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians is a not-category. I'm not arguing against avoiding not-categories, just against using that principle as a mechanical rule rather than a guideline that alerts us to cases that then must be judged on their own merits.
- "Carless Wikipedians" would still be a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - There is a Non-smoking Wikipedians category. Is that a "Classic 'not' category"? I'm just trying to understand the rules. --DieWeibeRose 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is definitely a "not" category by my definition. Unfortunately when I nominated that for deletion last, it ended in no consensus for some reason. We really don't need to categorize people who don't smoke, and have been considering a renomination of that soon. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - i don't own a car so i won't care if i don't own a userbox. -- FayssalF - 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Provisional KeepRename if possible, else Delete - I'm also having the same problem understanding what is wrong with this userbox. Exactly what policy or guideline is it violating? I also have the userboxes for non-smoker, non-drinker, drug-free, and atheist, all of which are "not" categories. If a userbox must "help Misplaced Pages" then how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Misplaced Pages? Show me the basis for this deletion request and then I may change my vote. -- HiEv 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)- First and formost, please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. Second of all, there is (rightly) no category associated with drug-free wikipedians (category was deleted here a while back) or for alcohol-free wikipedians. Athiest counts as a religion category, and is not considered a "not" category. The non-smoking category can be explained with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and the category should be deleted. As for "how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Misplaced Pages?" Users with such categories can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to the university. There is no article titled People that don't have a car or anything similar, so there is nothing for such users to collaborate on. If the intent of this category is for people who support sustainable living, they are free to join Category:Wikipedians who support Sustainable Living. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't ask for an explanation of the Non-smoking Wikipedians category. I merely asked, "Is that a 'Classic "not" category'?" Ditto, the Homeless Wikipedians category. As for alcohol and drug-free Wikipedians there is the Straight edge Wikipedians category. --DieWeibeRose 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I somehow missed the difference between "category" and "userbox" before. I have to agree with 7Kim above though, being a "not" category isn't a good reason to delete a category. As I mentioned earlier, "atheist Wikipedians" is a "not" category, because it lists people who do not believe in gods. However, there is utility to the "atheist" category. Still, one could ask, "What's next? Wikipedians who don't believe in Santa Claus?" You can see why that argument fails, just because some "not" categories are ridiculous does not mean there are no "not" categories that can be useful. If a more useful category for "car-free Wikipedians" could be used instead then it should be renamed to that category, if not, then delete it. -- HiEv 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't ask for an explanation of the Non-smoking Wikipedians category. I merely asked, "Is that a 'Classic "not" category'?" Ditto, the Homeless Wikipedians category. As for alcohol and drug-free Wikipedians there is the Straight edge Wikipedians category. --DieWeibeRose 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- First and formost, please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. Second of all, there is (rightly) no category associated with drug-free wikipedians (category was deleted here a while back) or for alcohol-free wikipedians. Athiest counts as a religion category, and is not considered a "not" category. The non-smoking category can be explained with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and the category should be deleted. As for "how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Misplaced Pages?" Users with such categories can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to the university. There is no article titled People that don't have a car or anything similar, so there is nothing for such users to collaborate on. If the intent of this category is for people who support sustainable living, they are free to join Category:Wikipedians who support Sustainable Living. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. a "not" category. What's next, Category:Wikipedians who don't own hovercraft? —ptk✰fgs 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "not-category", with (imho) only tenuous ties to eco-issues. - jc37 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - Following the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category I propose renaming the category as "Car-free Wikipedians" or, alternatively, "Wikipedians who support the car-free movement." This would link the category to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Misplaced Pages community. Car-free Wikipedians could reasonably be expected to be interested in collaborating on the Car-free movement article and some of the several related articles listed in its "See also" section. Does this solve the problem? --DieWeibeRose 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The logic for creating Category:Wikipedians who support the car-free movement would be the same as the straight-edge Wikipedian category, as there are a few articles such people in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on. I don't think, however, that a rename of this category would work, since I doubt all current members of the category support the movement. You could make a new category, though. VegaDark (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Those categories are all essentially the same thing as "I don't drive a car." If you want to categorized Wikipedians by transport, don't categorize them by what they don't use. Categorize them by what they do use, for example, Category:Wikipedian cyclists.—ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Okay, I'm going to create "Car-free Wikipedians" and modify the ubx to add users to that category. I'll drop the Sustainable living stuff. I've already notified, on their talk pages, all of the users using the ubx that there is an ongoing discussion about deleting the category the box is associated with. --DieWeibeRose 10:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please give this discussion at least a few more days before spinning off an exact clone of the category under discussion here. "Car-free Wikipedians" means exactly the same thing as "Wikipedians who don't own automobiles". —ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Car-free Wikipedians" is definitely not "an exact clone of the category under discussion here." It follows the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category and links the category to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Misplaced Pages community. --DieWeibeRose 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- May I suggest something that obviates the "not" objection we keep hearing? Category:Wikipedians who use public transit would do so nicely. --7Kim 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, "Car-free" Wikipedians still means wikipeidians who don't own a car, whereas "Wikipedians who support the car-free movement" is a different type of category and would work along the lines of the Straight-Edge Wikipedians cat. (I still don't think we should have categories for Wikipedians who support/oppose anything, but that is a different debate alltogether). Ideally I'd like this to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement if kept. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please give this discussion at least a few more days before spinning off an exact clone of the category under discussion here. "Car-free Wikipedians" means exactly the same thing as "Wikipedians who don't own automobiles". —ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The rationale for avoiding "not" categories goes back over months of discussions. Essentially the idea is: 1.) We should avoid all-inclusive categories. 2.) 2 categories covering the same topic (differing in one is positive and the other negative) would together be essentially "all-inclusive". 3.) Therefore one of the two should be deleted. 4.) typically the "negative" (also known as the "not"-based category) should be deleted, since the positive is more likely to be useful for positive collaboration (whether direct or indirect), and the negative form is more likely to be divisive or inflammatory. - Therefore, since we have Category:Wikipedians who drive cars and Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles, one of them should be deleted, and in this case, it's clearly the negative form. It doesn't matter if we call it "Car-free", or whatever, it's still the negative form, or in other words, a "not" category, and so it should be deleted. I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is worth exactly what you all paid for it, but I would suggest that the not-ness of a category should not be viewed as cause for deletion in and of itself, but as a flag that alerts us that other reasons for deletion may exist. Looking back over history, it seems to me that categories labelled as nots, when deleted, have always had other arguments against them -- lack of Wiki-utility, redundancy, divisiveness, silliness, irrelevance, overly broad scope, &c. In editing, the use of passive voice is not itself bad, but extensive use of passive voice serves as a good predictor for the presence of weasel words, unsourced assertions, and POV problems. So too with category management -- a negatively framed category title or definition is not itself bad, but serves as a good predictor of a valid cause for deletion. --7Kim 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - The category is empty--68.42.141.76 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who support the development of Renewable Energy
Useless category. Does anyone not support the development of renewable energy? Might as well have a category for people who support improved health care, improved human rights, etc. Also, "Renewable Energy" should not be capitalized, so at least needs a rename. I'd also support a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy.
- Delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy as nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy as a large topic of interest. –Pomte 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy - says essentially the same thing, while being potentiallly less divisive. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy - more appropriate and a large topic with potential to interest many. Camaron1 | Chris 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Now that I think of it, Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy topics might be a slightly better name. Thoughts? VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy. Wikipedians interested in ... seems to be a more well-established convention than Wikipedians who support ..., preferable due to divisiveness issues, and safe from the vagueness surrounding the meaning of "support". --7Kim 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May 28
Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants
- Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Merge into Category:WikiProject Irish Music members, duplicate. -- Prove It 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Procedural comment shouldn't this be a user cats for discussion? Carlossuarez46 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Moved from Categories for discussion May 22. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ask WikiProject to decide on one, then speedy merge - This goes back to the members vs. participants debate. The best way to deal with this is ask the WikiProject which they prefer. VegaDark (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reverse merge to "...participants". (Yes, ask the WikiProject, but, I still prefer that "members" be removed.) - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May 27
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University Belfast
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To differentiate Queen's University Belfast from Queen's University in Canada. Cordless Larry 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note moved from Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Queen.27s_University. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- rename/speedy rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
May 26
Category:Wikipedians interested in Local History
"Local" varies for every person on Misplaced Pages, so as is, this category is essentially useless for collaborative purposes. A way to salvage it would be to make it in to a parent category and change the name to Category:Wikipedians by local history interest, and have subcategories for each city. Unfortunately, we we would have to ask everyone in the category which city's local history they are interested in to determine this, so I don't know if this is salvagable. As is, this category is no more useful than if someone just wrote they were interested in local history on their userpage. "Local History" shouldn't be capitalized, so this at minimum needs a rename.
- Neutral pending more discussion, but leaning towards delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - At first I was thinking that this could be kept if the inclusion criteria involved local culture and society in general as sociological items. However, it's clear from the category introduction that this is not the case. This merely duplicates every "Wikipedian by location" category into one sprawling category which is potentially all-inclusive. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This just isn't useful unless it provides a means for finding Wikipedians interested in the history of some particular locality. Which is an interesting idea, but I don't see the possibility of it without building and filling a perfectly gargantuan category tree. Even then, how local one can go without passing the notability horizon is not an argument I care to be present for. --7Kim 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians for an end to the boxwar
This category became more or less obsolete when Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration came along. I don't think this category was useful at any point time, but It certainly isn't useful now. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not particularly useful any more. The "war" is over, nothing more to end. Picaroon (Talk) 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Some may consider Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration to be a continuation of the "boxwar". I'm going to be semi-cliche and suggest that if this is deleted, so too should all Wikipedian by Misplaced Pages issue categories, else it should not be deleted. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians supporting the revival of New Jack Swing
Not something Misplaced Pages needs a category for. I'm sure everyone supports the revival of various things, but having categories for such things will not improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or at least rename to "Wikipedians who listen to..." - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian Emeraldists
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy delete at author's request. NoSeptember 11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"The wikipedians who have joined User:Alphablast/The emerald society". Sorry, we don't need categories for unofficial userspace groups. Similar categories have been deleted many times in the past. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Premature. If this "group" survives in Misplaced Pages: space, then such a category might be useful. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:User tpi-0
Category:User no-0
You have called {{Contentious topics}}
. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:
Alerting users
- {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
- {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
- {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
- {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
Editnotices
- {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
Talk page notices
- {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
- If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.
Miscellaneous
- {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Misplaced Pages. speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 11:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
0-level category. Mass deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify, since this specific one hasn't been deleted before. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note - Added Category:User no-0, which also needs deletion. VegaDark (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
May 25
Category:Wikipedian Autograph Pages
Does not aid collaboration in any way. At all. Also, wasn't something like this deleted before? – Gurch 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I think all these autograph pages should be deleted. They are all a waste of space and people's time. However, until that happens, a category to group them all might not be a bad idea (in order to make it easier for a group MfD). VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The category helps autograph pages to become shorter in that they don't need to include a list of autograph pages anymore. A•N•N•A hi! 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They never needed to in the first place. It's only been part of autograph pages because some people have chosen to do that to further their
inappropriate use of Misplaced Pagessocialization. Metros 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They never needed to in the first place. It's only been part of autograph pages because some people have chosen to do that to further their
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Misplaced Pages is not your high school yearbook. Sean William 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, utterly and completely useless, unless this is some sort of holding pen so we can delete them all at once later. Why on earth would we categorize unencyclopedic user subpages? --tjstrf talk 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I suppose that I could note that User:Jimbo Wales signs such pages, and supports their use, but instead I think I'll simply point out that this discussion is about the category, not whether you support having such pages on Misplaced Pages. Oh, and keep because: If we've got 'em, then grouping 'em as a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians by user page would seem to make sense. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedian autograph pages. This serves as a useful tracking category because the autograph pages in it are often discussed. –Pomte 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per Sean William. We don't need to go as far as adding on a category to these useless subpages. I imagine the only use for it (besides tracking them) would be for these users to find random users' pages to sign (as they often seem to do). Tim Q. Wells 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, a category that shouldn't contain anything anyway. —ptk✰fgs 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Long hair advocates
- 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) 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No possible collaborative use; WP:NOT a webhost or social networking site. (ESkog) 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is essentially a NOT category (and don't come down here saying this helps collaboration on feminism).--WaltCip 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "This lists Wikipedians who are against female haircutting" - Sorry, we don't need a category for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a major issue in some countries of the world, as well as some religious sects/groups/whatever. However, I can't tell if this is the intent of the category, or just a category of those who find long hair on women attractive, and are opposed to it being cut. Keep if the former is true, else Delete if the latter is true. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- If that were the case (which there is no indication of either way), this category would still need a rename, so deletion looks like the best option. VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 1 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:Singaporean Misplaced Pages administrators
- 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 previous consensus on admins per country categories. Picaroon (Talk) 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This one must have slipped through the cracks of the Administrators by country UCFD a while back. In either case, I think that established enough precedent for this to be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Should have been deleted with the others. Doesn't help build the encyclopedia, we don't need to subcategorise admins by nationality. WjBscribe 02:30, 26 May 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:Audio file editors
- 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 - jc37 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Rename Category:Audio file editors to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files - added Wikipedians and re-arrange order. - jc37 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 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.
May 24
Category:Wikipedians Who Use gedit
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Gedit for proper capitalisation.
- Rename As nominator — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It does not appear to help the project in any way. --Bduke 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - A potential to collaborate on a single article is not worth having a category. Rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Gedit - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use gEdit -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If you go to the article, it appears as if "gedit" is the proper capitalization (lowercase G and no capital E) so if renamed, needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use gedit. VegaDark (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May 23
Category:Extra-terrestrial 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 deleted per creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't be true, does not help Misplaced Pages in any way. Categories like these are explicitly mentioned in the essay on what categories not to make. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Didn't know it was frowned upon. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-useful category. *Cremepuff222* 23:23, 23 May 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.
May 21
Sony PlayStation
- Relisting these to discuss whether "Sony" should be used, and about how (if wanted) to disambiguate between general PlayStation users and those who use the Sony PlayStation (and the PSone). - jc37 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Sony PlayStation to Category:Wikipedians who play Sony PlayStation games
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games to Category:Wikipedians who play Sony PlayStation 2 games
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games to Category:Wikipedians who play Sony PlayStation 3 games
- Neutral - hoping for more discussion. - jc37 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just PlayStation, please. I work with Sony guys, and even they don't call it the Sony PlayStation.--Mike Selinker 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Though I could get behind changing the PlayStation category to "Wikipedians who play PSone games", since it has definitely been overwritten in users' minds.--Mike Selinker 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Include Sony, without it we have a sentence containing "play play", which is obnoxious. --tjstrf talk 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to disambiguate for PlayStation in general (broad/unnecessary overlap; subcats do the job), nor for an empty Category:Wikipedians by PlayStation (overcategorization for only 3 subcats). –Pomte 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
May 19
Category:User accounts for vandalism
- 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 19:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't possibly categorize all past accounts that have been used for vandalism. Attempting to maintain such a category would be futile. This is nonsense. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Impossibly large scope, and doesn't sound right besides — we don't want there to be accounts for vandalism. Serpent's Choice 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Blake3522 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete → WP:SNOW ;-) There is no use for this cat. «Snowolf » 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - See User:HBC AIV helperbot/Special IPs. We may need more information about this one. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- If a user is in that category and they are posted to AIV, the bot will mention that the user is in the category. Should have no effect whatsoever on this debate. 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, deny recognition. —ptk✰fgs 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, immense scope! Don't need it. *Cremepuff222* 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - may encourage users to vandalise a page, and per above comments. –Sebi ~ 03:18, 26 May 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 that are in Spy Force One
- 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 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
User category that added people to a now deleted group. Not useful to Misplaced Pages at all. Once again, I'll say that stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete → per nom ;-) «Snowolf » 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Vanity category, among other reasons. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per above. *Cremepuff222* 23:26, 23 May 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 use Windows under duress
- 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 creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Does not help Misplaced Pages in any way I can think of. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Category fits me to a glove, but it doesn't do wikipedia any good. --Bduke 08:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete → No, I cannot figure how this category can help. «Snowolf » 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as creator: I have since read Misplaced Pages:Userboxes and have learned that userboxes should not by default create categories. Mea culpa --Slashme 07:30, 21 May 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 were in the Jeopardy! studio audience
- 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 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we want a category like this for every game show or talk show ever made? I don't see this being any more useful than its parent category, Category:Wikipedians who like Jeopardy!. I suppose it's possible such people saw some behind-the-scenes stuff, but adding any info they got from first-hand experience to articles would qualify as original research. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge → It's not necessary that somebody who were in Jeopardy! studio audience still likes it, but we can assume it. «Snowolf » 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Except perhaps The Price Is Right or Let's make a deal, being in the audience of a game show is about as notable as attending any performance/concert. As for the rename suggestion, being in the audience doesn't necessarily mean that they like the game show. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion is fine by me. VegaDark (talk) 07:37, 30 May 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 using Google Talk
- 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 who use Google Talk - jc37 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Redundant to the correctly-named Category:Wikipedians who use Google Talk. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge/speedy upmerge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge. –Pomte 08:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge → NCCAT, not controversial. «Snowolf » 22:09, 20 May 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 are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213
- 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 Keep as semaphore to developers, I suppose? : ) - jc37 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't need one of these for all 10,000 bug reports on BugZilla. Will become obsolete once it is fixed, anyway, and this category won't provide any benefit until then. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- As the acknowleged impetus for this category, I'll be sorry to see it go. This isn't just any ol' bug, but probably one of the biggest current sources of frustration for those of us that spend significant time battling Misplaced Pages vandalism. This little bit of wiki-civil disobedience was meant to simply inform other users about this issue (I bet 98% of regular editors still don't know about this bug) and encourage our noble developers on their pathway towards a solution. At least it managed to pick up a little bit of attention. In any case, I'm sure this cat will be deleted, and for perfectly valid reasons...but I won't pretend to like it! Sigh. — Scientizzle 08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until bug is fixed. Scientizzle is right that this isn't "any ol' bug". Because of this bug, warning IP users for vandalism serves virtually no purpose since most IP users are not getting the messages. The problem is that most users on Misplaced Pages still don't know that this bug is preventing them from being able to communicate with IPs. This category was created to try to "get the word out" that there is a problem with this and that most IPs are not receiving messages they sent. I understand if the category is deleted but that doesn't mean that I will try other ways to inform people. -- Hdt83 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fully aware of the bug and its effects. I don't see how increasing people's awareness of it any more will make the bug get fixed any faster. Every single Wikipedian could be in this category and I doubt it would make a difference, I'm sure the developers are working on it and the amount of people in this category isn't going to affect their speed. I also don't like the precedent this sets- Allowing a category like this for all bug reports on BugZilla (or at least all unsolved ones). Yes, this is more severe than most, but setting the threshhold for what is category-worthy or not is subjective. I also really don't like the temporary nature of this. I don't like the idea of any Wikipedian category that is expected to be obsolete within a few weeks or a couple months at most. VegaDark (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep WP:IAR. The bug report links to this user category to express the users' attitude. It'd look ridiculous when they come here to see it deleted. –Pomte 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - ridiculous category, serves no purpose and doesn't help anybody. Yonatan 14:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - After reading the comments above, I wonder if I should mention that the userbox won't be deleted due to this discussion... - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Worthy category until Bug ID 9213 is resolved, then should be deleted forthwith (but I'm sure even the creator would agree with me on that one). Orderinchaos 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Trying alternative ways to get problems fixed to make this project better is ok in my book. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I perfectly understand and support the reasons for setting up this category. (And yes, I had forgotten about the bug again... and I'm currently trying to contact an IP, so I'm glad about the reminder.) And if it should help in the least to indicate to the developers that this is seen as a priority by many Wikipedians--all the better. I'm sure they have a lot to do, so it's a good idea to indicate the priorities that current users request. (And no, I don't care whether a category is set up for a day or a century. If it's useful when it's there and doesn't cause too much trouble to set it up and delete it--what's the problem?) Nonetheless, I also have to agree with the argument that this would set a precedent. And we'd soon have so many categories that the purpose (pointing out a major issue) would be made impossible to reach once the word spreads and users rally friends and sock puppets to send their favorite bug category to the top of the charts... For this reason, I hope this discussion will drag on a bit more, raise a lot of awareness... and end with the deletion of the category. Mission accomplished. --Ibn Battuta 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This bug is pretty bad. (I'd support a cat for maybe bugzilla:57 too, but not the majority of bugs there.) I agree that this should be deleted if and when the bug is fixed, but the devs don't seem sure what's causing it. And awareness of the bug is good to avoid biting anons too. (Disclosure: I think it was me who reported the bug, but I'm not sure (/me checks: yes, it was me).) I'd add myself to the cat if I were the sort of user who used user cats. (Note that there is a method of 'voting' for a bug on Bugzilla, where you add your email address as a 'vote'; I'm not sure if the devs pay attention to it.) --ais523 14:14, 26 May 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 over 5000 edits and Category:Wikipedians with over 5,000 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 Deleted as empty by User:Anthony Appleyard. (And kind of hard to merge an empty category : ) - jc37 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the former was a subcat of the latter. As these are redundant, they should be merged one into the other.
- Merge as nom. bibliomaniac15 04:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians with over 5,000 edits as the other cats use the comma. Looks uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge → For now, for NCCAT, merge to the 5,000 one. However, I prefer the one without the comma as it's international. But I think that if somebody want to change the convention, he/she should make a group nom (I will probably do one of this days ;-) ). «Snowolf » 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. How about if this one is withdrawn, and we just proceed with the group nomination? - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Move Both As per a recent mass-merger of edit-counting templates these two categories and all other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits should be migrated to Category:Wikipedians by edit count and its existing subcategories. Adam McCormick 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits. We don't have the "over" construction.--Mike Selinker 11:19, 30 May 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 like Zoo Tycoon
You have called {{Contentious topics}}
. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:
Alerting users
- {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
- {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
- {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
- {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
Editnotices
- {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
Talk page notices
- {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
- If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.
Miscellaneous
- {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Misplaced Pages. rename.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Zoo Tycoon to Category:Wikipedians who play Zoo Tycoon. --Mike Selinker 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
May 18
Category:Userbox Creators
- 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, redundant. Picaroon (Talk) 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Redundant with the properly named Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/speedy merge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge as redundant. bibliomaniac15 01:49, 18 May 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:Spec-Chums
- 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 use ZX Spectrum computers. (The article suggests it's a personal computer rather than a video game console.) - jc37 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"This category describes those who consider themselves to be fans of the Sinclair ZX Spectrum computer" - Wha? This is nonsense. No indication it is even a user category, so at minimum needs a rename, but even then this would have no benefit to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like a nonsense category, its not helping the encyclopedia in any way. — The Sunshine Man 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (and possibly rename by prepending "Wikipedian"): as the description indicates, it's a badge category by which those involved in the ZX Spectrum pages identify one another, and as such it's no more "nonsensical" or unhelpful than, say, Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_Kingdom... Korax1214 13:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Possible move (rename) to Wikipedians who play ZX Spectrum, as per Wikipedians by video game console below. Korax1214 13:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, albeit possibly renamed to make it clearer (although I like "Spec-chum") --Zagrebo 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use ZX Spectrum computers per Category:Wikipedians by personal computer. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 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.