Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/August 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who published book

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who published book

At the very least it needs a rename. - jc37 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

August 25

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep in the absence of a general consensus to delete old sockpuppets categories. Incidentally, most Wikipedian sockpuppets of... categories are populated by various sockpuppetry templates that lack date parameters. While it is possible to modify the templates so that categories are placed in CAT:TEMP (or a similar location) after a certain period of time—{{deprecated}} is one template that performs a similar function—it should be done through broader discussion and consensus regarding all similar categories, rather than just this one. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listing here per MfD request by User:Pleasedeletethepage (probably the same user). What do we do with categories for the sockpuppets of users who were banned two years ago? I am neutral. –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

August 21

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Wizardman 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls

:Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls who are active G7'd - no longer needed. –xeno (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: this discussion and Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday.
Essentially the concern is that the intent of the userbox which mostly populates this category does not convey a sense of "immediacy", which those who wish to nominate Wikipedians would like it to have. And since there does seem to be a disparity between the name/intent of the category and the name/intent of the userbox, I suggest that we support the category be depopulated from the userbox (both transcluded and subst). If necessary, the category could be depopulated in general, so that we can "start over" in its intent and usage.
After some reflection, while I had previously suggested that perhaps a separate cat might be created for the existing userbox, I'm not suggesting that here now because I don't believe that there would be a purpose (collaborative or otherwise useful) to having such a grouping for those who wish for something "someday". (Compare to those who wish to have a car "someday".) - jc37 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate as nominator. - jc37 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suggeste dusing this as the basis for a list that a bot would maintain based on category membership at the village pump, so if that idea floats, then keep. I think adding a userbox is more intuitive than adding yourself to a list, so the two prong approach, whilst on the face impractical, may be in thi case a good idea. Although, could a bot simply patrol instances of a userbox on user pages? I don't know how that works with subst userboxes, it could be done by inserting some code into the userbox, I'm sure, the way bots know which pages to archive. I'll let brainy people run with the idea. Hiding T 11:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem, as I understand it, isn't that a userbox is being used, it's that the specific userbox isn't useful for the intent of the category. (And further, that the category hasn't in the past been clear enough.) So if this category is repurposed (though not renamed), then it should be emptied/depopulated and we start over. - jc37 11:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we agree on what the problem is. But I don't think the solution can be provided by any sort of rename, and the category can aid the purpose it is intended to via providing information for a bot to sort into a list. It's a sort of hack, granted, but it's a hack that can aid Wikipedia and therefore should be a good thing. If the hack can be made to work, and make this category achieve its goal via a list, I support keeping the category. Hiding T 12:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major issue here is that the category is filled with people who put this userbox on their page way back in 2006 and have sinced stopped editing. At the village pump, a suggestion was made to simply add a paramater "nocat" to decategorize inactive users thus the category would still serve some purpose for those who may wish to evaluate active hopefuls and consider nominating them for adminship. There was resistance to this so other options were proposed, splitting into the category "who are active" or "who are inactive". This was a suggested compromise, but I think the original idea to simply depopulate inactive users is the best way to solve this problem without having to create additional categories by activity. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the latest discussion on the VP-proposals page where the category is proposed to be used by a bot that would create a list including the date of each user's last edit (sorted by date). I happen to have nearly all the required code to do this just lying around. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the original category :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, delete the one I created :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls who are active per G7 as it's unnecessary with the new idea just to use it to create a sortable list with last edit dates. –xeno (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with that, keep it to populate a list with those users. SoWhy 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating the list with last edit dates is a good idea as a compromise, but then the category would still be pretty useless, which was what started the discussion in the first place. Removing inactive users from the category would help, but leaving them in does not help the category to be useful, and that does not help the project. Removing inactive users from this category isn't unfairly ranking users, it's helping the category help the project, and that's the purpose of user categories. WODUP 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I've deleted the "who are active" category per G7 and now we can just move ahead with the listify'ing idea. UCFD can be closed? –xeno (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category has the potential to be very useful. - Icewedge (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, both for category and userbox. ~AH1(TCU) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we get a hidden date added to the userbox? Just as we have a bot that goes through and adds dates to {{unref}} tags and whatnot, it could be helpful to have this category split up into subcategories such as "Administrator hopefuls in 2006", "Administrator hopefuls in 2007", etc. Then if a candidate is active, they can update the date on their own userbox. If inactive, the box naturally degrades into a category that we don't need to worry about. --Elonka 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great idea!
    However, I'm thinking that that still means that the category should be depopulated so that we can "start over". - jc37 05:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if this is the decision than do not depopulate until the bot makes its run to create an initial list. Alternatively, rather than depopulating, we could rename the category to Administrator hopefuls in 2008 and prior and start with a new subcategories in 2009. –xeno (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: If a list is created and regularly updated with last edit dates from the hopefuls category, why do we need categories by year? WODUP 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate per nom. Orderinchaos 12:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now used to create Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. SoWhy 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 15

[edit]

Category:User Wiki-0

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User Wiki-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

0-level category, which have an extensive history of being deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

"Wiki skill" categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete all. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User Wiki-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User Wiki-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User Wiki-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Wikipedians by editing skill" series of categories. "This user knows basic editing skills", "This user knows adequate editing skills", and "This user knows all editing skills, and is willing to help beginners". 2 of the 3 have no users in them (populated solely by template) and overall useless to categorize since "basic" and "adequate" are subjective, and doubtful many users know all editing skills. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedians who play Chip's Challenge

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by video game" category, which have an extensive history of deletion. See Chip's Challenge. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

August 11

[edit]

Category:Wikipedian pigeon fanciers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Hiding T 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian pigeon fanciers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per precedent. - jc37 08:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful cat for finding potential editors to join the domestic pigeon taskforce. Inclusionist Wikipedians? (that could make a CfD) What a joke this place is.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A "pigeon fancier" is apparently not just someone who likes pigeons, but someone who breeds them. I think that this implies a certain level of potentially useful knowledge on the subject of pigeons. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Took a bit of link surfing to find, but according to Animal fancy, this is applied to hobbyists, not professionals. ("Fancy" would apparently seem to be the long form of "fan".) This would seem to be barely a step above pet lovers. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah link surfing now that could become a craze! Once again a Wikipedian armchair expert on everything has decided (all by their lonesome) that by virtue of what they read on another Wikipedia article (OMG it must be true!) that fanciers can only be hobbyists and not professionals? Not experts by your reasoning either I gather? Love the way you use such amazing feats of deduction such as "This would seem to be". Trust me though on this. Some "pet lovers" are definitely experts in their field. I still reckon we should CfD Inclusionist Wikipedians though. Mainly because of the outrageously funny fact of you being in it. Oh my sides are splitting.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps as "outrageously funny" as someone making accusations about an editor without doing more thorough research? Though perhaps more akin to irony, actually, I think.
    Incidentally, nothing in your comments above have changed my perspective. For one thing, even if "some" pet lovers are indeed experts in their field (and I do not dispute that), that doesn't mean that all are. And more to our current situation, that doesn't necessarily mean that all who are in the category are. And further, based on the name of the category, there is no reason to believe that they are, nor that they should be required to be, to categorise themselves as such. I would be more than happy to discuss a cat concerning "professionals" in regards to pigeons. But this isn't it.
    That said, I would welcome verifiable reliable sources supporting your belief. - jc37 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you? Yeah I did say "Some" and I had known that doesn't mean "all" are. "more akin to irony"? Here's irony. My honest opinion is that the cat is useful. You may never agree that it is but that's your right to have that opinion. I'm happy to let the community consensus here decide if the cat stays or goes. Discuss a cat concerning professionals? Well lets wait and see if this cats survives the CfD first. If it goes I'll create another perhaps more suitable cat?--Sting Buzz Me... 12:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I also find it "humourous" (or ironic) that right after attempting to berate another Wikipedian about merely reading a wikipedia article (which wasn't true, but be that as it may), you then merely link to irony?
    And incidentally, the "irony" is that you seem to be doing the exact things which you're attempting to accuse me of, and have been in your last few posts. The civility and good faith of which could be considered questionable.
    "Yeah I did say "Some" and I had known that doesn't mean "all" are." - Well, that alone kills the category. Inaccuracy is a bad thing in categorisation. - jc37 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Black Falcon. Does not appear to be on the same level as "Wikipedian with a dog or fish". -- Ned Scott 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that there is a related article to this, Pigeon keeping. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. While some people know what a "fancier" is, others do not and might become a bit confused over the issue. Maybe name it to something like Wikipedians interested in Pidgeons, or something around that line. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps a rename to Wikipedians who breed pigeons? No other opinion. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian storywriters

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian storywriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This illustrates how problematic Category:Wikipedian writers (nomination directly below) is. So apparently this cat was created to be "more specific". Except that while there may be a term for storyteller, there isn't one for storywriter. This is a question of being an author. I might suggest a rename to substitute "authors", but I'm not certain we wouldn't have the same problem below of vagueness. So, while no prejudice against the creation of a "authors" cat, not necessarily supporting its creation (if it were listed here, for example). - jc37 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No article means no way this can facilitate collaboration, plus the fact that most people are required to write stories at some point during schooling, so this is potentially all-inclusive...Unless this is supposed to be a profession category? That brings us back to the fact there is no article, VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and VegaDark. There's no way to make sense of this category: it is supposed to be a category for storywriters (professional? amateur? school-age?), but is populated primarily by a userbox that states: "This user writes books." Renaming to Wikipedian authors would probably take care of the miscategorisation problem, but it would only worsen the problem of generality. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian writers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: depopulate and create more specific categories. Might I suggest "Wikipedians who are professional writers" as a more descriptive category. –xeno (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a vague cat that is rather all-encompassing (as can be seen by the category membership). - jc37 08:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or rename as a profession/skill category. We probably should make it clear that this is meant for editors who actually make a living and/or are particularly skilled at writing, rather than just being interested in writing as a hobby, etc. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but agree with Ned. It should be for people who actually write books or short stories or are particularly skilled. --Bduke (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The best way I know how would be to rename the cat. However by doing so, we will be essentially repurposing the cat. And when dealing with a category this large, I don't think we can presume that everyone within are professionals. (Several userboxes which populate the cat clearly do not concern professionals, and since are subst-ed, this will require more than a bit of clean-up at the very least.) The best way (that I know) is to delete/depopulate and start over with a new cat with a more accurate name and inclusion criteria. This prevents accidental miscategorisation. I think it's better to start over, than to, by keeping, make inaccurate statements about an editor that the editor never intended. Though I obviously welcome other ideas. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:Wikipedian cavers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian cavers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Caves which is inactive, and Caving the single article for this single article cat. - jc37 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian crystallographers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Head count would suggest keep, but there is useful discussion of a rename below, which if pursued more vigorously may lead to a more consensual outcome, but at present discussion has dried. I suggest it might be worth returning with a suitable rename proposal. Hiding T 10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian crystallographers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See Crystallography and (based on the presumed intent of the category per its intro) X-ray crystallography.

First, at the very least this needs a more specific rename per the general article.

Second, following the rename, this would presumably become a single-article cat.

Note also that every member is as a result of this userbox. - jc37 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "crystallographer" is pretty clear. Most will specialize in X-ray crystallographer, but all will know about that form of radiation as well as about the use of neutrons and electrons for studying crystals. We do not need to be too specific. --Bduke (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians with a Linux Professional Institute Certification

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with a Linux Professional Institute Certification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also Linux Professional Institute.

Single editor cat, for a (non-professional?) certification. - jc37 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify, although I note the list already exists at Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits. Hiding T 10:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See this previous UCFD, which noted a MfD of the related list page. There is also a second MfD which resulted in no consensus.
See also the populating userbox.

In all of the discussions noted above, the main concern appeared to be "I don't know...". Simply, this is too vague. It requires explanations, both of the types of specific individual "difficult edits", and why this applies to each editor. This is clearly something that applies on a case-by-case basis. As such, this should be a list, not a category. And since it already has a list, nothing should be lost by removing this category. - jc37 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea for this followed the idea of similar categories and lists for admins. The reason was, if I recall it all correctly, that there were times when those editors who were known by their real names, and even those whose anon names might not be sufficient to maintain total anonymity, would be afraid to make edits because they, or their families, might be hassled in real life. Thus there was a reason to know those editors who were fully protected from outside hassling and attack. I hesitate to delete either the category or the list unless this issue is actually addressed, so for now I say keep. Editors have been forced off wikipedia by outside threats and attacks. There are editors who actually have nothing to fear and are willing to list themselves to help out. I think we should encourage them, not discourage them. --Bduke (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those things may be true. But I don't believe (in reading over the list page) that that is true for all those including themselves, either on the list or the category. I think each person has ascribed to themselves what they feel is making "difficult edits", and as such should be allowed to explain that in the same place as their inclusion in this "grouping". So, per WP:CLN, this should be a list. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Difficult" has different meanings. A category for those willing to make the edits Bduke mentions above may very well be useful. Then again, users may add themselves to this category because they are proficient in templates, and consider "difficult" to be more technical difficulty rather than socially difficult. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/delete - As noted by VegaDark, "difficult" can mean many different things; a list is much better suited to this type of case than a category. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian members of micronations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian members of micronations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See Template:User WikiProject Micronations.

At first, this looked like a WikiProject category that needed to be renamed. However Category:WikiProject Micronations participants already exists (with several of the same editors). See also Template:User WikiProject Micronations. As it stands, this should be deleted as vague. (Which specific micronation(s)?) - jc37 03:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedians who write for the WikiPolitics blog

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who write for the WikiPolitics blog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also the userbox, and http://wikipolitics.blogspot.com

Per much precedent. - jc37 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Wizardman 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single editor cat. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedians by access to research sites

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: the swing of the discussion is to Rename to Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. Hiding T 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by access to research sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are innumerable websites which require a sign-in to gain even partial access. Various newspapers, journals, libraries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the like. Is this a precedent that we wish to start?

Incidentally, it only has a single member; a subcat (which also has only a single member) which I've added above. If the single member subcat is deleted, then this could be deleted per WP:CSD#C1 - empty. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a somewhat new category, and a great new idea. Also per my comments in the above uCfD. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, I am agreeing with Ned. We can use references from all sorts of places. The scientific literature for example is available in libraries, but one often can not get internet access. Those, like myself, who can are valuable to check references that editors might be claiming establishes a point. As Ned says, this is great new idea, not something to pull down. --Bduke (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library Category:Wikipedians by access to digital libraries (JSTOR is located in Category:Digital libraries), since the JSTOR category (nominated above) needs a parent. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, I support a Rename. If "a digital library" (singular is better) is the proper term, then support. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, the singular is better. Ideally, the title should indicate that the category is only for digital libraries or research websites that restrict access (anyone can access Google Books, so a category for that is not useful). However, I've not been able to think of something other than "Wikipedians by access to a restricted digital library", which does not really convey the principle. Perhaps a category description could be used... –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Black Falcon. Keep at least. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My primary concern with this category is the "By access to" part. People have access to plenty of things, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily going to use that access to help Wikipedia. Now, presumably people aren't going to add themselves to this category, and then when someone asks for them to use it to help get information for an article, they aren't going to say "sorry, I only have access to this, why the hell did you think I would actually use it to help?", but to avoid any possible confusion or chance of this happening I'd prefer some sort of rename. I don't think the majority of users would do this, but I do think that some users (most likely the ones who are in hundreds of user cats) scour through the categories to see which ones they could add, without actually wanting to collaborate. If we rename it, that problem is eliminated, but I'm not sure what the name should be (and I certainly don't oppose the "digital library" portion of the rename proposed). VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and agree with Vega's comments above. If used it should indicate a desire to help the encyclopaedia, and perhaps that could be made more explicit in the name. I would be happy to add myself to such a category if such a compromise naming was found. A similar category, although of a different nature, is Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. Orderinchaos 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps rename to denote those users who are willing to help look things up, not merely that they have access... but definitely keep. I think a potential subcat is "users who have access to online university libraries". ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No clear consensus. There are obvious concerns stated here, but there are also obvious benefits stated. Hiding T 10:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Nominating this as a test case.)

Now that SUL has been implemented, technically we all have, or easily can have, an account on any sister project. So contribution is merely to click a link (let's say on an image page) and you're instantly editing at commons, perhaps without even knowing.

On the other hand, being considered a contributor at commons might be an indirect indication of knowledge about images, however, that's: a.) not necessarily true, so b.) shouldn't be a reason to categorise, since it's not necessarily accurate.

This nom is not intended to include the cat's subcat. - jc37 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedian Wikimedia Commons administrators

[edit]

Category:Wikipedian Wikisource administrators

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename both. Hiding T 09:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedian Wikimedia Commons administrators to Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators
Rename Category:Wikipedian Wikisource administrators to Category:Wikisource administrators

To remove "Wikipedian", which is redundant in this case. May qualify for speedy. - jc37 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects to Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on sister projects

To clarify that these are other project admins, not Wikipedia admins who contribute to other projects. - jc37 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

August 10

[edit]

Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is another user-related category, which have been repeatedly deleted in the past. - jc37 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 9

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in (parts of) London

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in east London
Category:Wikipedians in southeast London
Category:Wikipedians in Croydon
Speedy rename at least to match East London, England.
As for the nom for deletion, the category inclusion criteria (duplicated in each) says it all: "Wikipedians who feel they are connected with east London in some way, possibly by living there."
"in some way"? "posibly living there"?
Also, while I did not nominate it, is Category:Wikipedians in Wimbledon miscategorised? Should a sub-urb of a city be considered "in" that city? I don't think so. (I think it's a naming confusion between London and Greater London.) Discussion welcome, though perhaps it could/should be moved to that category's talk page.

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

August 8

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in userboxes

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We already have Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes, I'm not sure how those "interested in" userboxes would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

August 7

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who live on Cape Cod and the Islands

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who live on Cape Cod and the Islands to Category:Wikipedians in Cape Cod and the Islands
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, merge to standard naming; see Cape Cod and Islands. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 6

[edit]

Category:Bratislava Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bratislava Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Bratislava
Speedy rename to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location (see {{User bratislava}}).Black Falcon (Talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who translate pages into English

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Hiding T 09:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who translate pages into English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The present title of this category, while technically accurate, is somewhat confusing. This is not just a general category for anyone who translates pages into English, or for users who have made themselves available to translate content from certain languages to English (see Category:Available translators in Wikipedia), but rather a specific category for users who help out at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. A little over 100 of the 112 pages in the category are there due to {{User wikipedia/Pages needing translation into English}}, and the rest are probably substed instances of the template. To avoid ambiguity, I think that the category should be renamed; however, I'm unable to offer a good alternative at this time. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedians interested in JCI

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in JCI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for current or former members of Junior Chamber International. As such, it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians in Junior Chamber International or deleted as with most other "Wikipedians by organisation" categories. While the possible collaborative scope of this category is not limited to just one article (see Category:Junior Chamber International), it is relatively narrow for an interest category. (Also note that the category currently contains only two actual users.) Moreover, no encyclopedically-relevant knowledge or ability seems to be readily apparent from membership in this category.


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

Category:NRI or PIO Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NRI or PIO Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

According to the Wikipedia article, the scope of this category extends at minimum to anyone who is:

(1) An Indian citizen who has migrated to another country,
(2) A person of Indian origin who is born outside India,
(3) A person of Indian origin who resides outside India,
(4) A person of Indian origin, up to four generations removed, who is not a citizen of India,
(5) A spouse of a person of Indian origin, up to four generations removed, who is not a citizen of India,

The primary function of user categories is to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, and this category does not do that, in part due to its inclusiveness, in part due to the fact that there is really no encyclopedically-relevant reason to seek out anyone on the basis of these characteristics, and in part due to the redundancy created by the existence of Category:Indian Wikipedians (an "origin" category), Category:Wikipedians in India (a "residence" category), and other similar categories for other ethnicities, nationalities, and locations.


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

Category:Indian Wikipedian citizens

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian Wikipedian citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who are citizens of the Republic of India. For the purposes of user categorisation, which is intended to provide tools to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users, knowing the citizenship of another users is not particularly relevant, particularly when Category:Indian Wikipedians already exists.


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

Category:Anglo-German Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anglo-German Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Similar to Category:British-Irish Wikipedians, which is nominated for deletion below, this is a category for a particular intersection of ancestries populated by a userbox (link) that states: "This user is of German and British ancestry." As we already have Category:British Wikipedians and Category:German Wikipedians, an intersection category is not needed (it does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration) and sets a poor precedent for similar categories. See related discussions here.


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Not positive of a consensus to keep, but definitely no consensus to delete. Wizardman 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who add interwiki links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's hard to imagine that this category could facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, or that there might be any reason to specifically seek out someone who adds interwiki links. The task of adding interwiki links is a fairly simple one (for the most part it is done by bots) and I do not think that this category reflects any special ability, knowledge, or understanding.

  • Delete as nom. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Is there more to this than those who run bots to add the interwikilinks? - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm aware. I know it's often also done manually (usually by IP accounts, in my experience), and I sometimes do it in foreign-language Wikipedias when I notice a missing link, but the process involves no special skill or ability that I can think of (an understanding of multiple languages is helpful but usually not strictly necessary). –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading over InterWiki (and other related pages), I've changed to strong delete. The problem here is that the category doesn't specify (and can't specify per it's current name, and, based on the userbox, its current intent) that this is limited to Wikimedia projects, but rather includes the addition of any Wiki links. (See also History of wikis). As such, this is about as useful as "Wikipedians who edit a wiki somewhere". As anyone who edits can add a link by adding brackets with an antecedent, such as noted at m:Help:Interwiki linking. See also the Wikipedia Interwiki-Link-Checker, for a (presumably) Wikimedia-related interwiki tool. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — these users may want to collaborate in efforts to add interwiki links. From my understanding, bots only add interwiki links if one of the pages has the interwiki link, but the other does not. For example, if en:paper has an interwiki link to fr:papier, but fr:papier does not have a link to en:paper, then the bot will add it to fr:papier. If none of the pages have the original interwiki link, however, then the bot will not add to both. This is why we need editors, who generally will need some degree of multilingual skills. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't you just add a line to the userbox that says something like "You can help!!!". Nobody is going to get to this category by mistake; you don't just type in "Wikipedians who add interwiki links" into the search box. So about the only way to get there is via one of the user pages that are in the category, and both of them have the user box. --Kbdank71 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some people do them by hand (there are several technical limitations on the bots that prevent them from covering all interwiki links). This is as valid as any other collaborative category on the wiki. I do not find it hard to imagine such users looking to find each other, discuss issues and tools related to the task, and so on. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ned Scott. Perhaps this category should become a task force. There must be some WikiProject that would be interested in promoting the addition of interwiki links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per InterWiki I share some of the same concerns as jc37. Without prejudice of creating a more specifically named category for the activities the users above mention, however. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gunna say "keep" on this one. When we had an interwiki bot that went wild, I had to seek out an interwiki guru to clean up the mess. Could be useful in the future. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I share the concerns of Jc, but I think the best bet is to find a better name, with the input of the members so categorised. Hiding T 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like MST3K

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like MST3K to Category:Wikipedians who like Mystery Science Theater 3000
Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation and match the article title (Mystery Science Theater 3000). –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Diary of a Wimpy Kid

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Diary of a Wimpy Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is for Wikipedians who like the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series or the first book in the series (see the userbox). In either case the category may be overly narrow in scope, but it is especially so in the latter case (i.e. as a single-article category). It's also worth noting that collaboration could be coordinated through WikiProject Wimpy Kid. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who read the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series (convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre) or Category:Wikipedians who read Jeff Kinney (convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author). –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - single article category. No prejudice against (re-)creation of the categories (series and/or author) suggested by the nom. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the userbox, the users in this category simply like the first book, and not necessarily the entire series, so this would be too narrow for collaboration. No prejudice to creation of a "series" category per jc37. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British-Irish Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British-Irish Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Essentially an ancestry category, which have all been deleted. Populated by a userbox that says "This user is of Irish and British ancestry." We already have Category:British Wikipedians and Category:Irish Wikipedians, a combination category like this is not needed and sets precedent to keep any number of ethnicity combination categories. Similar precedent exists here. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Cleanup Taskforce members who have been asked to re-register

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify. Now to work out how that happens. Hiding T 10:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cleanup Taskforce members who have been asked to re-register (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First, this category has no indication it is a user category, so it at minimum needs some sort of rename. Second, this category was attached to a template sent to users approximately a year ago asking them to re-sign up for the cleanup taskforce, and there is no indication it was removed if/when these users actually did re-sign up, so there may be users who did that yet are still listed in this category. Finally, this would do better as a list at the cleanup taskforce page rather than a category if they still want to keep track of this. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No need to seek out Wikipedians specifically to do this, so grouping such users does not benefit the encyclopedia. Nobody is going to look through this category to find someone to ask to help welcome new users; it would take more time doing that than simply welcoming themself. The subcategory of Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee (which has slightly more value, since that group does more than just welcome users) can be moved to a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm slightly torn on this. Most of the members of the category are due to transclusion of this userbox. And several who are in the welcoming committe category are also in this one. However, if we delete it are we suggesting to editors that they cannot collaborate in this way unless they are considered part of the welcoming "committee"? Further discussion welcome. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete / Merge to Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee depending on further discussion. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed from weak keep, to weak delete, per Black Falcon's comments below. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think that deletion of the category would suggest that users cannot or should not welcome users outside of the structure of the Welcoming Committee; rather, it would be because the nature of the activity is not one that requires categorisation. Anyone can welcome users using {{welcome}}, and I can't think of a reason to specifically seek out someone who does this. Any questions about welcoming could be directed to the talk page of the Welcoming Committee or to any one of its members. To some extent, I see the category as intended to express a preference for a particular welcoming template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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