Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WP:UCFD
Deletion Debates
Articles (by category)

Templates

Images & media

Categories

User categories

Stub types

Redirects

Miscellaneous

Deletion review
policy - log - tools

On this page, deletion, merging, and renaming of user categories is discussed. The process is the same as at Categories for discussion. Completed discussions are listed in the archives, although some will also be listed at the workpage for user categories until all contents are dealt with.

The correct template to place on the user category could be {{cfd-user}}, {{cfr-user}}, {{cfm-user}}, or {{cfr-user-speedy}}.

Note: In cases where categories which are populated at least partially by the transclusion of one or more templates (this includes userboxes), the category, not the related templates, is to be the target of the discussion. To discuss templates in this manner, see also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.


Contents

[edit] Closing

For instructions on closing debates see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User.

[edit] Speedy

[edit] December 9

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign

Category:Aquarius Wikipedians
Category:Aries Wikipedians
Category:Cancer Wikipedians
Category:Capricorn Wikipedians
Category:Dog sign Wikipedians
Category:Dragon sign Wikipedians
Category:Earth element Wikipedians
Category:Fire element Wikipedians
Category:Gemini Wikipedians
Category:Horse sign Wikipedians
Category:Leo Wikipedians
Category:Libra Wikipedians
Category:Metal element Wikipedians
Category:Monkey sign Wikipedians
Category:Ophiuchus Wikipedians
Category:Ox sign Wikipedians
Category:Pig sign Wikipedians
Category:Pisces Wikipedians
Category:Rabbit sign Wikipedians
Category:Rat sign Wikipedians
Category:Rooster sign Wikipedians
Category:Sagittarius Wikipedians
Category:Scorpio Wikipedians
Category:Sheep sign Wikipedians
Category:Snake sign Wikipedians
Category:Taurus Wikipedians
Category:Tiger sign Wikipedians
Category:Virgo Wikipedians
Category:Water element Wikipedians
Category:Wood element Wikipedians
Merge all sub-categories to Category:Wikipedians interested in astrology - per Astrological sign, Astrology, and Zodiac.
Delete Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign - Other than an interest in one or more of the several astrologies, these categories are not useful for collaboration. - jc37 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all sub-categories, and Delete parent category - as nominator. - jc37 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Can't agree with that, Jc. To me, this falls under basic demographic information, no different than age or gender.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify: We categorise by age, because it's presumed that people of a certain age may be more or less apt to know about certain topics (hence for collaboration purposes). We categorise by location because we presume that people from a certain location are more apt to know about certain location-based topics. But there is no collaborative reason for the subsections. (Essentially categorising by birth month.) An interest in astrology, however is useful for collaboration, as noted above. Hope that helps explain : ) - jc37 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    I get that, but collaboration isn't my only reason for keeping a category: "A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia." This meets my first criterion of basic demographic info (though I admit I would prefer not to categorize by actual birthdate).--Mike Selinker 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by current project

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 speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Recreation of deleted content. Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2006#October 7.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] December 8

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot

Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot - Associated article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmbot. - jc37 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why exactly would user categories have to have an associated article? -Amarkov blahedits 01:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Read the Afd. Based on its findings, the category should be deleted as well. (I'm just following consensus...) - jc37 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous consensus, and it no longer serves a purpose. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children

Category:Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children - While cute... (Also, if anyone can offer some insight into the possibility that this is more than it seems, I'm all ears : ) - jc37 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep safety first. SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly does that MEAN anyway? Seems rather nonsensical... 68.39.174.238 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not really sure what it means either, but I doubt it aids in collaboration. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic.--WaltCip 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as category creator - I made the category as a bit of an inside joke. Sorry for wasting your time. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I re-edited my userbox to remove the link to this category. The category is now empty.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who mine 4 fish

Merge Category:Wikipedians who mine 4 fish to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Authority Zero - jc37 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who hate redlinks

Category:Wikipedians who hate redlinks - Presuming this one's obvious... - jc37 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can see how this could help collaborate if it's used by editors who search out red links to create articles for them. However, unless someone states that it actually is used for that puropose, I don't think we need it. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This could encourage people to create nonsensical categories.--WaltCip 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who fix comma splices

Merge Category:Wikipedians who fix comma splices to Category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar - While the latter is useful for editing collaboration, I don't think the various specific types of grammar issues need their own categories. (And if someone can think of a better name for the latter, please speak up : ) - jc37 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - The category is too specific. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - This category is pedantic, it should be deleted, we should salt it too if we need to.--WaltCip 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who think this is not a laughing matter

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who don't think forever's fun

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 deleted both (empty).--Mike Selinker 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who think this is not a laughing matter and Category:Wikipedians who don't think forever's fun - only members of each category are the userbox and the categories' creator (the same Person created both). They are "not" categories, but beyond that, I think I'm missing a cultural reference... (Not opposed to merging or a rename, if these categories are more than what they state...) - jc37 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to whatever's being referenced. I wish I could remember what is being referenced, but there is definitely a cultural reference you're missing. -Amarkov blahedits 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the first one is from the standard spam email from Nigeria. Don't know for sure, though. Anyway, they're both empty, so I put a bullet in 'em.--Mike Selinker 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who are kids at heart

Category:Wikipedians who are kids at heart - I almost didn't nominate this, because I think the sentiment is perfectly fine... However, the category really doesn't help for collaborative purposes... - jc37 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, please think of the children. Even if they are adults who are only children at heart. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cute, but doesn't help in collaboration. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A nonsensical category. Extremely unencyclopediac.--WaltCip 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Online Wikipedians

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who are currently online

Merge Category:Online Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians who are currently online. They would seem to be the same thing. Final name is open for discussion : ) - jc37 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who think outside the box

[edit] Category:Wikipedian Critical Thinkers

Category:Wikipedian Critical Thinkers - While this is nice to know that they feel this way, I don't see the need for these categories. These are populated by: Template:User outsidethebox and User:Mkdw/Read, respectively. - jc37 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as even on Wikipedia critical thinkers are often sadly lacking. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Useful information, but we don't need a category for it. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not present well in category system.--WaltCip 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who love WWE

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 speedily merged.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians who love WWE to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - per consistancy. - jc37 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who like hockey

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 speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians who like hockey to Category:Wikipedian hockey fans - jc37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Chicago Cubs

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 speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Chicago Cubs to Category:Wikipedian Chicago Cubs fans per consistancy. - jc37 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedian who think Mozilla Firefox sucks

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 speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian who think Mozilla Firefox sucks - Empty, and a "not" category. - jc37 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. even though firefox does in fact "suck", per nom
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedian Elfmaniacs

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 speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedian Elfmaniacs to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Danny Elfman, per consistancy of Category:Wikipedians by musician. - jc37 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Rename - as nominator. - jc37 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Rename - as creator of the userbox. -Releeshan 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Monty Python 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily merged (fixed the one errant template per many precedents).--Mike Selinker 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Category:Monty Python fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python - Per previous discussions and standard. Ultimately, a duplicate.--WaltCip 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] December 7

[edit] Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys

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 speedily deleted per creator's request.-Mike Selinker 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys into Category:Wikipedians who use PGP

  • Merge, I created the former category not knowing that the latter existed. I changed the link in {{user PGP}} to point to the latter, and in no longer makes sense to have two. Avi 14:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reposted from CfD by Andrew c 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] December 6

[edit] Category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists

Rename Category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists to Category:Wikipedians interested in cryptozoology - The only member is due to Template:User cryptozoology, which states: "This user is interested Cryptozoology". However, due to it's current name, it was sub-categorised under Category:Wikipedians by profession instead of Category:Wikipedians by interest. - jc37 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. 1ne 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube

Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube - While I honestly am impressed, I don't see how this will help collaboration (outside of Rubik's Cube, of course : ) - jc37 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have the notion that the category may have been created in good faith, and while it doesn't aid in collaboration, I think the ability to solve a Rubik's Cube might be considered a milestone for some users. It's the difference between illiteracy and logical thinking.--WaltCip 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, helps neither collaboration nor community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WaltCip. 1ne 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. That's a hobby.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a benchmark for intelligence.--eskimospy(talk) 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians born in August

Category:Wikipedians born in August - only one of its kind. - jc37 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians born on August 12 - nope.--Mike Selinker 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kill it before it spreads. Also the 12th category above.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is absurd that it is okay to have an catagories called "Leo Wikipedians" but not "Wikipedians born in August".--eskimospy(talk) 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both - We don't need categories for every birth month. —Cswrye 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Discount keep vote per WP:ILIKEIT: "What about article X?"--WaltCip 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Offline Wikipedians

Category:Offline Wikipedians - Unlike Category:Online Wikipedians, I don't see how this category is useful. A userpage note (whether by userbox, or whatever), is enough. - jc37 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As the definition of "offline" is ambiguous, it would be merely extrastrenuous effort to have this category, as every time you logged off you would have to place yourself in it. To defuse the "Well, what if you wanted to let people who posted on your Talk page know you weren't there?", you wouldn't need a category in the first place if you were going to be away for that long. You would make it known on the userpage. A category is just wasted time and effort.--WaltCip 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1ne 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fascinatingly recursive.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Nominator

[edit] Category:Fooian Wikipedians

Category:Fooian Wikipedians - Ok, I've read over this page several times, and did some searches. This seems to be a generic religion category, to show how to make religion-based categories. (The same goes for the userbox.) Note that Foo in this case would seem to refer to a Metasyntactic variable. While it may be interesting as a project page for showing how to make a religion-based userbox, it shouldn't be a category. (Lack of an entry on this list would seem to support this - even the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Jedi made the list : ) - jc37 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians interested in dystheism

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 speedily deleted (empty).--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in dystheism - Currently empty. (Previous members were only the userbox that was apparently supposed to populate it, and Category:Dystheist Wikipedians as a sub-cat - which seems to be the naming convention of the other categories in Category:Wikipedians by religion.) Note: this is the only "interested in" category in Wikipedians by Religion. - jc37 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and per Mike Selinker's previous discussions regarding the nonexistent difference between "being" and "being interested in."--WaltCip 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries

[edit] Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries
Category:Multiracial Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity has many ways to be specific about nationality/ethnicity, but these two sub-cats seem to be too vague to be useful for collaboration. - jc37 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is vague, but there is an article for multiracial. Also, I see how people of mixed ancestries could aid in collaboration on articles such as racism since they may have to deal with issues that people of a single ancestry do not. However, I do think that it is reasonable to merge the two categories since it may not be necessary to make the distinction between them, but I have no preference as to which one gets merged into the other. —Cswrye 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't oppose merging both, if no consensus to delete. How about: Category:Wikipedians of multiple ethnicities, to match Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. - jc37 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me, so I support that merge. Just make sure the header states that it is also for multiracial editors (that might not be completely clear from the name). —Cswrye 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1ne 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's hard to tell people what ancestry is okay and what isn't.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. as above.--eskimospy(talk) 02:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per mike, cswryeBakaman 23:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 5

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck

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 delete.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck - While I appreciate such a sentiment, I don't think a category is needed for this. (I found this while reading through an arbcom nominee's user contributions.) - jc37 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Delete.--WaltCip 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, I think we need to dig deeper into the roots and delete the essay through which the userbox was founded.--WaltCip 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - inflammatory and unuseful; Wikipedians who don't give a **** about what? --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it's trying to say 'Don't take things on Wikipedia too seriously', but right now it's just rather inflammatory. I'm a little neutral about MfDing the essay, though - I can vaguely relate to the sentiment... riana_dzasta 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, who gives a fuck? —ptk✰fgs 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Because...okay? You don't have to have this userbox; but perhaps others might wish to express themselves in this ironic fashion. Have any of you read the essay? These reactions seem rather of the "knee-jerk" variety, in my humble. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please take a moment to read the name of this page, and its introduction. This has nothing to do with the userbox, merely the associated category. - jc37 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    jc37: while I can appreciate your having appointed yourself "Minister Of Category Deletion", please understand that a) I read and understood that "this" has "nothing" to do with the userbox, and b) I voted to keep the category, not the userbox; your "ownership" of this page notwithstanding. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, your comment was: "You don't have to have this userbox; but perhaps others might wish to express themselves in this ironic fashion." - So I felt (and feel) that offering a friendly notice that this isn't about the userbox was appropriate. Now as for the rest of your comments. Please consider your tone, I believe that you're coming rather close to WP:NPA. As for "Minister of category deletion", well, in a word: wow. I suppose I could suggest that you look over the various nominations over the last couple weeks and see quite a few merges, and renames as well, but I think I'll just offer a counter name suggestion: "Participant in WP:UCFD". We (note the we) are trying to clean up all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians. The goal of a User category is: collaboration, and/or usefulness in grouping together Wikipedians. If the only reason for a category is as a notice, then the category should be deleted/renamed/merged. And I think I should apologise to User:Mike Selinker, since if anyone should have the dubious appelation of page ownership, or even Minister, it should be his : ) - He's done an AWESOME job at helping develop consensus on these related categories, and deserves the majority of the accolades (though, as I said, dubious they may be : ) - jc37 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, I did see the essay. And WP:NOT is not a sufficient argument. "Not censored" doesn't mean using an expletive every three words. Could you at least clean the thing? It's prone to vandalism--WaltCip 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    You..."saw" the essay. I once "saw" a copy of "The Iliad" in the original Greek; this does not mean I read it...heh. And as for the category being "prone to vandalism"; this describes approximately 85% of the categories on Wikipedia. The category is a plea for apathy in regards to the jerks on runs into on Wikipedia; not apathy TOWARD Wikipedia; as evidenced by this statement: In short: don't be a grumpy-pants, full of apathy, but remain distanced from arguments that are passionate. I can understand why you object to the language used; but as I respect your right to keep and bear arms, please respect the rights of others to express themselves in a manner in which you do not approve. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Would you condone a category that said Category:Wikipedians who banged their girlfriend?--WaltCip 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    We aren't discussing that category; we are discussing Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck. I have a problem with the word "condone", as it speaks to "ownership" and "approval", which should not be part of the equation here. And just curious...would you condone a category for Category:Wikipedians who protected their girlfriend using a firearm? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    No.--WaltCip 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This category doesn't really mean anything; I mean, Wikipedians who don't give a fuck about what? Anthony Rupert 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia does not exist to provide users with a way for them to express themselves. If the category doesn't aid in collaboration, it should go. —Cswrye 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration or community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personally, I'm surprised at the passionate reaction because... well, you know.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, Wikipedia:Profanity states the following. "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." This category doesn't pass the test.--WaltCip 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Anime 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Category: Wikipedians interested in anime and manga.--Mike Selinker 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Rename per consistancy. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom in good faith. A deletion in rename nom shouldn't be made unless a point can be proven other than consistency.--WaltCip 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for catching that : ) - I obviously meant "rename". (How does one delete per consistancy? : ) - jc37 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Encyclopaedia Metallum members

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Encyclopaedia Metallum.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Encyclopaedia Metallum per Category:Wikipedians by website.--Mike Selinker 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per consistancy. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Users WikiProject Caucasia

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 rename per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:WikiProject Caucasia members, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] December 2

[edit] Category:Martian 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We just deleted "Space Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians with Lunar citizenship", so this should go too.--Mike Selinker 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - It would be suprising if we really had Martians editing, especially since the life forms that may exist on Mars would be too simple to edit or even reach Earth on their own! ;) --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... but what about Wikipedians from Mars, Alabama?--WaltCip 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although judging by some of the stuff you see on NPP, some people just might be on a different planet... riana_dzasta 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians

  • Category:Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians by category. My proposal (based on the Wikipedians nomination) is to move all subcategories to this new name, and then delete category:Wikipedians (thus removing all user pages).--Mike Selinker 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggested Category:Wikipedian categories in the last discussion : ) - For this one, do we need the second "Wikipedian" modifier? - jc37 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • amended to Category:WIkipedians by category.--Mike Selinker 16:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support amendment. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is something we may need to consider about renaming this category. Since it is such a major category, there are many links to it. According to its "What links here" section, there are more than 1,000 links to it. Note that the "What links here" for categories does not include the user pages that are just listed in the category. Hard redirects don't work for categories, so that's a lot of broken links that will get created. —Cswrye 09:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, though as I mentioned in the last nomination, there are other idiosyncracies as well. : ) - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I hate to be the one to rock the boat, but I don't think that this is a good idea. Here are my reasons: 1) As I mentioned above there are a lot of links to this category that would be broken if the name were changed. 2) Using the term "category" in a category name is redundant. On WP:CFD, categories that have "category" in the name usually get renamed. 3) This is a top-level category, much like Category:Wikipedia. Top-level categories generally have simple name that make them easy to find and to show that they apply to everything in its subcategories. While I agree that there should not be any users listed in Category:Wikipedians, I think that this solution could potentially be worse than the problem. Instead, I suggest the following: Change any userboxes or templates that put people in this category, and put requests on the user pages of everyone else to ask them to change categories. We probably won't get everyone out of the category that way, but it might at least clean out a lot of it. —Cswrye 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - At this point, it would seem that we're all in agreement that wikipedians should be members of the sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians. We also agree that any templates which populate this category should be modified to not do so, or at least to point to a sub-category. The concern would appear to be about actually modifying a userpage. According to WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, such concerns are about "non-trivial edits". I don't think this is a "non-trivial" edit. (For one thing, it should be wholly not disruptive in any way.) I think if the edit summary linked to the relevant discussion, then at that point if there is any concern the user in question is welcome to discuss it (as is also mentioned in the guideline). This way we're in line with WP:Consensus; WP:BOLD; and WP:USER (and Template:Sofixit : ) - jc37 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - My comments above, aside... In giving this some further thought, I think that making this a "self-reference", is unnecessary, and may cause more problems later. - jc37 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Subpages or main pages of users with unsupported titles

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 rename to category:Wikipedians with usernames with unsupported titles.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Category:Subpages or main pages of users with unsupported titles to Category:Wikipedians with usernames with unsupported titles. Or something.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedian usernames with unsupported titles. - jc37 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename, as current sounds awkward and does not contain "Wikipedian", standard for all user categories except Babel. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This category "technically" isn't a list of users, but rather is a list of usernames. It's a minor distinction, but I think it's worth mentioning : ) - jc37 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Noted. I think any miscategorized page can adapt.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Category:Members of WikiProject My Chemical Romance

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 rename to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance members.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Members of WikiProject My Chemical Romance to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance members per standard of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject.--Mike Selinker 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Rename per previous discussions. - jc37 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance participants. I still have the belief that "participants" sounds more welcoming than "members", where the otherwise sounds like a clique.--WaltCip 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, but we've settled that issue by our hippocratic rename to "members" and "participants" in that category.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Portal categories

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

The result of the debate was rename all.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Uruguauyan one was nominated below, but I felt they should be considered as a group. Not sure if this is the best wording, though.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm kind of looking forward to a discussion on these. On one hand, technically they are roughly a part of an associated WikiProject. On the other hand, It may be useful to know who actively helps with a portal. I also think "help maintain" is better than just "maintain", but I agree that other wording options would be welcome. - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename for consistency. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, wording seems OK. riana_dzasta 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave When setting up Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal, I did consider setting up a WikiProject but decided that this might be too formal, especially as there is already an Energy WikiProject. Instead I deliberatly opted for an 'interested group of contributors to the portal & topics' rather than a 'group of maintainers & administrators of the portal'. This is reflected in the name of the collaboration and in the suggested ways in which people may wish to help on the Energy Portal talk page. By changing the name in the way proposed, uniformity would be gained, but the original intention would be distorted. So, for the Energy Portal, upgrading the existing informal 'collaboration' to a formal 'WikiProject:Energy Portal' would be closest to the origial intention, if uniformity must win. But why not leave alone and use the Category:Wikipedians by portal for navigation, expanding it to include all the other collaborations, individuals and WikiProjects (which, of course, don't generally call themselves 'Maintainers of Portal X') that maintain or contribute to portals, starting with those listed in the Portal Directory. Gralo 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all for consistency with similar categories. —Cswrye 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/e/Wikipedia%7EUser_categories_for_discussion_2022.html"