Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/September 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< prior debates October 2006 >

September 30[edit]

Category:Fascist Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 --Kbdank71 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete, Divisive category with absolutely no value, its previous primary use was a template which has now been deleted. Actually I found out about it when spotted someone using it as vandalism.Konst.able 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a legitimate political party preference outside the US.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Mike, reluctant Keep. --kingboyk 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of courseI find it LAUGHABLE that democracy a so-called "proponent" of Freedom of speech is to be the downfall of us Fascist idealists having a category to ourselves. You call yourselves free? I find it ridiculous, you may say it is divisive but it is as divisive as Anarchiy, Communism, Feminism or Libertarianism. We are NOT Nazis, we are NOT evil and NO we are NOT going to allow you to delete the category because you are simply anti-Fascist. This is purely antagonzation of a group who is worthy of representation. You already deleted our tag and now you are attemtping to delete the category? If you do delete this category I will cook up such a storm on Wikipedia that I'll take it to the highest powers, and the result willl be messy - meaning, that every other category will also become subject to deletion. Do not try to be wise asses, NOW who's being the democratic induced self-proclaimed "Fascists"? Ironic n'est pas? The fact that this was put up for deletion does not even warrant to be taken seriously as no other category has been put up. Fascism is still alive and well as a political movement and philosophy. Piecraft 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is problematic. It is divisive. And in fact as an admin, I have been dragged into the midst of '2 separate rows between fascists and non-fascists (plus 1 more over another political group), these are both involving personal attacks on a political level. In one I am accused of anti-fascist censorship, and in another I am accused of sympathising with fascists (so which one is it?). Those voting keep, please consider dealing with the political flame-wars yourselves, because I will no longer extend my voluntary contributions as an admin here to keeping peace over this utter bullshit and nonsense. They can call each other whatever they like, they can vandalise each other's user pages by putting in this category against the user's will, they can accuse Wikipedia's admins of being "fascist cockknockers", "idiots", "snarky sociopathic nerds" of "WiKKKpedia", they can bark out oders at others, they can they can use the category in question to spam recruitment invitations, they can refer to each other as "you little piece of shit" they can kick and scream and keep re-creating their advertisement material which was deleted through unanimous community consensus on AfD and accusing whomever deletes it of censorship, they can resort to straight out vandalism using this category - I don't care any more. Let it stay and please both the fascists and the anti-fascists, let them fight over it, abuse and threaten each and propagate their "free speech". Let them, I've had enough.--Konst.able 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (to use a vernacular reference) Whoa, dude. Chill out. : ) I'm sorry to hear that vandal fighting has been that tough for you. I am sure that everyone here appreciates all efforts along those lines. Is there anything we can do to help you (lessen the load somehow?) - jc37 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - For a category of only 3 Wikipedians, this category has simply too great a potential to being greatly misused, per Konstable, above. (See also the comment below about the related Afd) - jc37 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, those three people are not the ones vandalising or being destructive against the Wikipedia cause. Please guide your investigations deeper to root out the vandals and trouble-makers and not crash on our parade simply because we wish to be identified under the ideology and philosophy of Fascism. I am not a bad person I do not kill nor vandalise pages nor do I seek to cause problems, but I find it rather disturbing that it's okay for this continuous attack on Fascism to continue simply because it's "divisive" which it is not. If this category is divisive then so are each of the other philosophical and political categories. As for you Mike Selinker, I did not mean to come across as being a complete freak in my last statement, but try to understand how it would feel to be targetted for simply upholding a simple userbox for your own personal views - I can see you don't possess any on your user page and that's fine. To be honest I don't really care about the outcome of the entirety of all this debate over whether or not userboxes are necessary, but I do feel offended that someone would only try to delete the Fascist category simply because they don't agree or like Fascism or Fascists. That in itself it hypocritical and that is why I stated I would nominate the entire political category and take it up further to other admins, because I don't agree that it is alright to delete just ONE category which happens to be Fascism and not any other category i.e. Communism, Anarchy or Feminism when they are clearly as divisive as the Fascist one. Thank you for your time. Piecraft 11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- "...but try to understand how it would feel to be targetted for simply upholding a simple userbox for your own personal views..." - Not the userbox, just the related category. Per citations from Konstable above, in my opinion it's become too volatile an issue. As an aside, I'm "on the fence" about political party/dogma categories, in general (per "issues" vs "organisations"). And I seriously am empathetic with your concerns about being the little guy. Is there a compromise of some kind we can come up with? - jc37 13:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • well yes I was referring to the category, sorry I accidentally said userbox. But my statement still stands regarding the presence of the category. I find it truly unfair if this category is deleted simply to satiate the Anti-Fascists. What next? deleting the Communist category because of the Anti-Communists? Come on! Political or not there's a time and place for everything and if we're having every other philosophical and political category in the user categories then there should be a place for Fascism, just as there is a place for Republicans, and Taoists. There is no double standard here, only those that people make-up to cover their asses. Piecraft 14:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further Comment, I would like to add as well that Konstable has lately been picking in particular articles relating to Fascism. He or she seems to have some trouble with Fascists having some sort of presence on Wikipedia (no I don't mean evil overlords who want everything their way - as some may mistaken the term), therefore I would once again plea the closing admin to take into consideration the factors, this is clearly comparable to bully tactics. Piecraft 14:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I presume that Konstable's protection of this due to this is what you're talking about. In this case, he's right. If you're upset that the article was deleted, take it to deletion review. Also, the fact that an article (which appears to be associated with the category) was deleted , is another strike against the category, in my opinion. I especially like Camillus's statement: "WP:Not for Fascism made up in school one day." - jc37 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further Comment - Well, after reading through Konstable's and your contributions, I lost my sense of "underdog" empathy for you (note strike-out above). I feel a general sense of revulsion to the various actions I've been seeing, actually. I'm going to have to give everything I've seen some further consideration. - jc37 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yet another comment, jc37 I think you've somehow confused what I was saying. I have no idea what you're implying. I couldn't care less whether people are "on the fence" or not. To be honest this category could easily be deleted, my point is only that it is being done in bad judgement and for the wrong reasons on behalf of Konstable who seems to be anti-Fascist and this clearly shows with his recent activity. If you are to delete this category I will bring the entire category of political and philosophical views up to be considered for deletion as well, as I do not find it right to merely target this category. I do not need any sympathy I am merely requesting the acknowledgment of another member's reasoning. As far as things still stand there is no resolution (no surprises there) because people still have not opened their eyes to the pure scandal that this nomination is actually promoting. Anyone voting delete is only strenghtening my point, by default to delete this category is proving the flaws in the system of not only Wikipedia but in the democratic system altogether and thus furthering the Fascist cause (so we win in any case). Piecraft 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (restarting indent)
  • If you are further confused, feel free to ask. - jc37 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, before this gets any more ridiculous, I'm not here to debate semantics with you. 1) this has nothing to do with the article of the AFM, I could care less about it - it was a notable organisation and the only thing I can agree as to the removal of this article was that it may have not been NPOV. 2) anti-stress? hardly... if that were the case why simply target this category? there's no good explanation you have come up with other than it being "divisive" which is a load of pockycock as far as I can see. 3) I never portrayed Wikipedia as being a battleground I was merely making a point about the general state of things, you can relax now and stop trying to push forward the fact that I am making some sort of mini revolution on here, I am simply defending the cause for this category against all odds. 4) If wikipedia is not a soapbox then you surely need to check things through, I'm not saying you're wrong but last time I checked the majority of articles and people working on Wikipedia are constantly pushing their ideas across. I agree that opinions should be kept to each individual, however your opinion ends where mine begins - there is no space for disrespect, and I find it disrespectful for someone to carry out a deletion mission against a category for people who wish to identify themselves as Fascist when every other category seems to be safe-guarded, that if anything goes against every hypocritical policy of Wikipedia. If you want to delete this category then be fair and put all the political categories up for deletion, don't be so discriminatory. Take a good look at yourself before passing judgement and preaching to me, that's all I'm going to say on this matter and to Hell with the rest. Piecraft 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. What sickens me is that, although I am a self-proclaimed Fascist, there are a category of Fascists that exist that simply do not have any idea what they are talking about, and merely want to start up an argument. We have a userbox that says "This user supports the Galactic Empire (from Star Wars)" and, AFAIK, it's still there. My beliefs in Fascism extend to that anyone who is incapable of being a good citizen and is not wanting to change that status should not exist. This, I can back up with a reasonable amount of logic. This is all going to end in a hypothetical riot that will no doubt result in the ruin of this WikiPedia from the Fascist elites. WP: NOT Democracy does not follow the ideals of preventing freedom of speech, but of preventing the usage of straw polls and the like. If we silence the voice of the Fascists, no matter how riled up they can be, you also voice out the logical voice. And that logical voice could save the world from blind socialist reasoning. And stop making Fascism a negative connotation. I am sick of people pinning down blanket statements, for instance, Charles Lindbergh was a Fascist, and therefore a Nazi. There are elitist Democrats too. Think about it.--WaltCip 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Statement recanted by me.[reply]
  • I could not resist dropping by to take a look at the discussion. But I promise, this is my last post before my "break". Piecraft, regarding the other userboxes, there are hardly any political ones left and I have just deleted 5 that I deemed divisive and inflamatory (see here for which ones exactly). As with regards to categories, I think it is a good idea to delete them all (especially since even Jimbo wants them gone). But if people for some reasons of "free speech", or whatever they call it, want to keep even Category:Fascist Wikipedians (while categories relating to McDonalds and iPods are getting good support for deletion, hrm). Why did I target this category? Because some anti-fascist user was using this category as a harassment tool against another Wikipedia user (the attacker now accuses me of being an anti-fascist censor, Piecraft I recommend you contact User:Fmaack there and try to reach consensus over which type of censor I am, is it fascist or anti-fascist?) Oh yeah, I got sick of User:Dormantfascist, so I blocked him indefinitely and deleted his user page, so now there is 1 less person in this category - making it just 2. (To your earlier question Piecraft, pick one of these reasons for his block: personal attacks, incivility, disruption of Wikipedia by endless re-creation of deleted pages, then vandalism of articles, vandalism of my talk page, and silly misguided attempts to steal my account password).--Konst.able 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good sir, are you implying that I - as a Fascist - harass other WikiPedians because of their beliefs against me and the fact that I, as such, would be a "divisive and inflammatory" person? I would hope not. Even if it was true, Wikipedia is neither censored nor a censorship.. Don't take anything that's outside the norm as offensive. The only enemies are the ones that you choose to make.--WaltCip 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sifting through, it looks like 4 keeps (PC, MS, KB, WC) and 2 deletes (Konstable and me). Any other comments? (Attempting to get this discussion back on track to a discussion about a category.) - jc37 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete divisive. Hiding Talk 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really see that winning this argument really causes nothing more than emotional strife to drive Wikipedia apart. As I don't want that to happen, Delete per nom, and I recant my Keep.--WaltCip 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now it's 3 keeps (PC, MS, KB) and 4 deletes (K, WC, JC, SB). This is starting to look like the realm of "no concensus", unless we find more opinions... (see observation on talk page) - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 29[edit]

Babel user box categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 as nominated --Mike Selinker 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in accordance with ISO 639/RFC 3066 conventions on regional dialects. —Psychonaut 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 28[edit]

category:Decatur Wikipedians to category:Wikipedians in the Huntsville-Decatur Area, Alabama[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. This is getting into the realms of a "speedy" candidate; the category name is either factually correct and complete or it isn't. Nobody objected to Mike's statement of fact, so it should be renamed. kingboyk 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) This Decatur is in Alabama, not Illinois.--Mike Selinker 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

September 25[edit]

Category:WikiProject Contemporary Christian music participants[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Central England to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: UCE Birmingham[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

September 24[edit]

The "not" categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This group seems totally unusable for creating a group to work on an encyclopedia. It is possible to write an article about Slayer, but not about opposition to Slayer. I can see objection to the IE one, though, and perhaps it may survive where others do not.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just delete them?! Is Wikipedia a venue for browser wars? No. --kingboyk 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not joking :) Could you please tell me why? Elsewhere on this page you've rightly advocated deleting all "not" categories. I've not heard any sound argument as to why the browser categories should be exempt. As far as I can tell they only serve as weapons in the browser war, and that has no place here. --kingboyk 12:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the nomination directly below this one. The question is about supporting or opposing an issue. There seems to be a rising concensus in CfD that articles about people should not be categorised by issue, due to questions of POV, citations, etc. The reverse is true for Wikipedian categories, since Wikipedians place themselves in the category. And knowing where a Wikipedian stands on an issue can potentially be helpful to fellow editors. - jc37 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be helpful to editors to know if another editor dislikes IE or dislikes Firefox? --kingboyk 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, divisive, and Wikipedia isn't a social club. Hiding Talk 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, it is ridiculous to categorize by what someone does not like. --musicpvm 01:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Setting aside commenting about the categories themselves, and just the intention of the cat, I think the three listed separatly should probably be listed in the nom below (opoosition categories), and not with the "not" ones (or perhaps withdrawn and relisted separately). Since you listed them Mike S., do you (or anyone else, obviously) have any issues/concerns with that? - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to pull it out and recast it as category:Wikipedians who oppose Internet Explorer (as "who oppose" will likely be the only "not" format to survive), that's OK with me. I still have trouble buying that as a political position or a useful editorial preference, but I have no problems with it being relisted. The userbox one is fine too. The Firefox one appears to be about a fixed bug in the programming, and deserves deletion, though. If you move them, make it a separate entry, not part of the one below.--Mike Selinker 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I object. IE and Firefox are not political issues. They're web browsers. Furthermore, the people in those categories signed up to a category which says they "don't use" browser X, not that they object to it. Let's just delete this crud and move on. --kingboyk 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Thank you for the consent to allow for the modification of your nominations, Mike, But after taking a close look at not only all the category:Wikipedians, but also reading/re-reading many policy/guideline/essay pages, among other pages, I am altering my view. (If someone else wants to follow up on MS's generous offer, I am not opposed to it, I am merely not taking him up on it at this time.) I still believe the statement I made above. However, I think we should follow the same standard we agreed to below, for all support/oppose "issue"-related Wikipedian categories: "Allow the userbox or equivalent text, and remove the category". I think that by allowing categories on issues, we potentially could actually be causing concerns about advocacy to be realised. I don't think their removal would adversely affect collaboration, because: a.) the information is available on an individual user's userpage, and b.) If one is looking for collaborators for a project, one is more likely to look for someone interested in the topic, or some sub-grouping under that topic, not the individual issues related to that topic. Sub-group and issue supporters/opposers is a fine line, and well worth discussing. I would be interested in others' opinions on this, as well. - 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - A side note: the userbox issue categories could potentially be used as a reference to suggest that there are actual supporters of an issue, when the reverse has been suggested. So I think deleting that category "may" turn out to be unintentionally divisive. Relisting with all other "support/oppose" userbox issues categories would be the "fair" approach, should any one else wish to do so. - jc37 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Opposition categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are different than the above, in that they are political philosophies. I’m suggesting renaming them to match all the other opposition categories in category:Wikipedians by politics.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Category:Wikipedian IEEE members to Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per other categories of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Category:McDonald's Employees on Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a category:Wikipedians by employer, and if we did, it would get very big very fast.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't see what the problem is really, it's supposed to go with a userbox that I made. Vicer 04:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I agree that Category:Wikipedians by employer could be disasterous. On the other hand, McDonald's is a major corporation, and there are a lot of articles about it and its products that make it stand out much more than any ordinary company. It's possible that an employee of the company would have more knowledge about it that could be helpful in editing some of these articles. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps merge this with the (now deleted) "like/eat at McDonald's" user category (My comments about retaining the "commercial" categories from that CfD still apply, I think. Considering a DRV for those (if there is such a thing for categories)... - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful information, best presented on a user page not thorugh category structure. Hiding Talk 13:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having a hard time disagreeing with the above comment. Presuming Hiding roughly means: "Support the use of the userbox, or such similar information, on the userpage; oppose the need for a category". Which I guess turns me around somewhat on the "commercial" foods perspective. I'm having a hard time imagining a McDonald's WikiProject (compare to a Stargate WikiProject). Or even a broader commercial restaurant wikiproject... I suppose it's possible... So how about delete with the stipulation of recreation possible if wanted for collaborative effort? - jc37 13:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is precisely what I mean. I'd also add that no deletion is typically final, so your stipulation is not necessary. Hiding Talk 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that I'm leaning more in the delete direction for this reason. I don't think that this category is intended for collaborative reasons, especially since it was only created because of a userbox (I think it's okay to use userboxes to fill in existing user categories, but there's usually no reason to create a user category only because a userbox exists for it). I'll be willing to change my mind if someone can convince me that this category has been used or could be used to help editors. --Cswrye 15:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's not have a Category:Wikipedians by employer. The collaboration thing is a total and utter red herring (this isn't a WikiProject category); if anybody wants to find who's using the template they can use "what links here" and check for transclusions. --kingboyk 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for reasons commented above, with the stipulation that it may be recreated for collaborative effort use. (While I agree that that should be presumed, it shouldn't hurt to clarify.) - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you guys want it to be collaborative, then so be it. I don't really mind or care too much anymore. Though it could be disasterous to have, it probably won't attract too many people. Take the McDonalds Employees groups on Yahoo for example. Only one group out of 61 has about 300 or so members, while the smallest group has five. But I guess that's a completely different story to this. - Vicer 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Category:Users who like Chicken Fingers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the demolition of all "wikipedians who eat (X)" categories.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Category:Wikipedians who drink Belgian beer[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the demolition of all "wikipedians who drink (X)" categories.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

September 21[edit]

Category:User absent from Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

September 20[edit]

Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia (UDUIW)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete both --Kbdank71 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion. Could probably be speedy deleted as inflammatory and divisive, but what the hell, let's try process. This frankly combative category only serves to attempt to continue the userbox wars long after the peace accord has been agreed upon. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Cswrye 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As co-founder of this 'group', I should note that I'm on the fence on this issue. The other co-founder left Wikipedia some time ago, and our point was made anyway. I lean towards leaving this alone. --CJ Marsicano 02:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was alerted to this through talk page spam so I Refuse to Vote on this or anymore userbox wars. Certain small minded individuals have wasted too much of our time with their petty crusades against opposing dogma. They have justified this through false rhetoric claiming to end divisiveness on wikipedia. These tactics have the opposite consequence. Therefore I propose that we boycott this and anymore discussions that inflame the userbox wars. By allowing these wikipedians to set the agenda, we lose sight of wikipedia's true goals. Reject the userbox wars.--God Ω War 02:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as being formally in this cat (before changing my views on user cats as a whole) this isn't inflamitory, and despite the above comments when read carfully actually does support the german userbox solution --T-rex 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both There's absolutely no need to categorise users based on what solutions they favour to on-wiki issues; the only likely usage is for spamming, organised campaigns and fostering an "us against them" gang mentality. --kingboyk 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per kingboyk. Hiding Talk 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

September 17[edit]

More soccer categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some new ones, created between the last nomination and its implementation. The abbreviation always matches the league's conventions.--Mike Selinker 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Category:Members of Esperanto organizations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - jc37 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

September 15[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use the Open Directory Project[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFD without opinion. -- nae'blis 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use the Open Directory Project to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project

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 page.

Category:IP addresses with rotating users[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IP addresses with rotating users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 page.

September 14[edit]

Category:Psychology Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psychology Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian psychologists

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 page.

September 13[edit]

Category:WFD2008[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians for Denver 2008, for 2008 Democratic National Convention. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

September 12[edit]

Category:User degree/PhD to Category:Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees --Kbdank71 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which way to go on degrees. We have a couple options:

  • Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees
  • Wikipedians with Doctor of Philosophy degrees
  • Wikipedians with Doctorates of Philosophy
  • Wikipedian Doctors of Philosophy (don't much like that one)

And maybe others. Anybody have any opinions on which way to go here? I'll withdraw and relist when I get some advice.--Mike Selinker 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer the first option, since it could standardize nicely to Category:Wikipedians with Foo degrees. Perhaps there could be subcats for Bachelors and Masters? -- ProveIt (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a subcat. For instance I have a Ph.D. but no Bachelors or Masters degree. Most graduate students at CalTech do not get a Masters degree unless they need it for a summer job pay increment or are about to fail out of the Ph.D. program. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Category:Wikipedians/Ninjas to Category:Ninja Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just completing the thought from the closed nomination below. I'm fine with either delete, rename, or a different rename to category:Wikipedians interested in ninjas.--Mike Selinker 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

September 11[edit]

Debabelization, part 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename:

and delete:

I’ve nominated these as such because I’m pushing for the limitation of the Babel template to ONLY languages (computer or spoken). Babel makes sense for languages, because Wikipedia is a site that requires translation and coding; its purpose was to link people who had different skills in languages so that the creation of an international and well-coded Wikipedia could proceed. But it makes less sense for movie preferences, games, piloting, and (ulp) musical instruments. If these pass, I’ll propose changing all category:User instruments categories to normal Wikipedian categories. But only if. (Note: All user boxes will be preserved, but it may change where they point to.)--Mike Selinker 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ok, you just confused the heck out of me. I think I can isolate it to this sentence:
  • "I’m pushing for the limitation of the Babel template to ONLY languages"
What do you mean by "babel template"? - jc37 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Babel (see Wikipedia:Babel) is a system for rating users by a specific level of proficiency in something. It was created for languages because Wikipedia needs translation, and users could go to each other for help. Here and there, though, it crept into other user categories, in my opinion in an inappropriate manner.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I understand now. It's was the numeric structure of babel box organization that you were talking about. - jc37
  • I would also support deleting those, and for that matter all preference-based "do not like" categories (as opposed to political or lifestyle choices like vegetarianism or pro-life positions). I fixed the typo.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been trying to think of an example where the "not" categories are useful, but other than disclosing a bias, I can't think of any. And personally, I think it's possible for someone to dislike something, and still have an NPOV about it. So starting to agree with deletion of the Wikipedian "not" categories (except languages/programming languages). Since it's just the three of us so far, and we're in agreement, perhaps change the nom? - jc37 06:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll try it (renominated above), but if we get any objections, I'll probably change it back, and then I might nominate all of them after all the renaming is done.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are the ones that I could find that might fit the description: category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush, category:Wikipedians who dislike piercings, category:Wikipedians who dislike tattoos, category:Wikipedians who do not care what their astrological sign is, category:Wikipedians who do not drink soda, category:Wikipedians who do not eat cheese, category:Wikipedians who do not eat high fructose corn syrup, category:Wikipedians who do not like Slayer, category:Wikipedians who do not like iPods, category:Wikipedians who don't believe in IQ, category:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer, category:Wikipedians who hate hip hop, category:Wikipedians who do not use Mozilla Firefox, category:Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer, category:Wikipedians that dislike Wikipedia:German userbox solution, category:Wikipedians that dislike history, category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa. The Bush, IQ, userbox, and Santa ones seem more legit to me for some reason.--Mike Selinker 08:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

September 10[edit]

Misc. "Users" categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing to tackle the language and musical instrument categories, I cleaned out about 100 empty categories beginning with User or Users that replicated new Wikipedian ones, but these remained. The ones at the top I’m pretty confident about (though obviously if the food and drink categories go away, the drink ones here will too), but as it goes along I had to make up a few new names. Suggest alternatives.--Mike Selinker 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Wikipedians by diet[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete all Tim! 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note wikipedia:deletion review pending. Tim! 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial

Addition:

Not included, may need to be moved if the others are deleted, or nominated for deletion seperately:

Strong Delete all. Quite simply, these categories are unencyclopedic, trivial and useless.

The longer rationale: Whilst I have no strong objection to people placing userboxes on their pages about these things (although I prefer the GUS), categorising users by whether or not they like strawberries or drink coffee adds nothing to the encyclopedia and makes us look amateurish. This is not MySpace folks, it's an enyclopedia.

In general, we don't categorise user pages. There are exceptions to this, such as WikiProject memberships, hobbies and recreational interests which might genuinely aid with bonding or the formation of WikiProjects, whether a user is an admin or not, and so on. Categorising a user based on whether they like their steak rare or burnt just isn't one of those exceptions.

This nomination covers the entire Category:Wikipedians by diet, with the exception of the vegetarian and cooking categories which I feel are not at the same level - cooking is a hobby/occupation, vegetanariasm is a serious lifestyle choice unlike Pepsi v Coke or McD vs Burger King. --kingboyk 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom., but treat the Helal and Kosher ones in the same way as the Vegetarian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Silly, but "mostly harmless"; people are using them. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't consider these less important than one's political beliefs, musical preferences, or video game habits. It seems harmless and rather likable to me.--Mike Selinker 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the categories that are not excluded - I'm usually a big supporter of user categories, but I agree with kingboyk's reasoning on this. An editor's food preferences are not going to help with writing any articles. I do think it is good to keep the ones that were excluded since they refer to more general lifestyle choices that reflect knowledge about a variety of topics, and they don't tend to lend themselves to overcategorization like the individual food categories. However, I strongly agree with keeping Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal and Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher since those are also major lifestyle choices that can affect more articles than individual foods. I'm okay with keeping Category:Wikipedians by diet as the main category for the few categories that we are keeping (unless someone has a better suggestion for where to put them), but all of the individual food categories can go. You can see more of my reasoning behind this at Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories. --Cswrye 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sugarpine 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The category namespace is for articles, not user trivia. Martin 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep qwm 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While my first inclination is to "Keep" all, since these are similar to other interests/preferences that help wikipedians know preference/interest/bias which I feel can generally be helpful in developing the encyclopedia, I don't think mundane food preference in this case is notable enough. Whether I eat apples or not isn't likely to make as much difference in editing the article on apples. (And I would not oppose the deletion of the associated userboxes, for the same reasons.) In short:
    • Keep the dietary specific ones.
    • Keep the commercial ones (Pepsi, McDonald's, etc)
    • Keep all the beverage and candy ones - they are useful and helpful, since they are more about a consistant preference, typically exclusive to other choices.
    • Delete the rest
    • - jc37 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC) - (udate by jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, This is a vanity category and serves no encyclopedic purpose. OscarTheCat 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rama's arrow 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least move the maintenance of Wikipedian categories etc away from the maintenance of encyclopedic matter. Regards, David Kernow 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (except the excluded ones). They're pretty harmless, but these characteristics are just too trivial to deserve categories. And there is no limit to the number. Users will continue to create them for every food that exists on this planet. They serve absolutely no use. --musicpvm 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. Punkmorten 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if this nomination passes and some of the big ones are kept (vegetarian, halal, kosher), I would recommend category:Wikipedians by diet become category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy, and then anything that makes sense as a lifestyle choice would make sense under that. If the coffee drinkers want to start a movement called "coffeeterians" or something, great. But otherwise, if it's not a philosophy, it wouldn't go in there.--Mike Selinker 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All They add personality to editors, it's easier to talk to users/admins/etc then under less ridged conditions for some users. Adds comfort level.Hackajar 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if all these are not deleted, the first two "do not eat" categories should at least be deleted. It is ridiculously trivial for users to categorize themselves by what they do NOT eat. --musicpvm 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All, and for what it's worth the nomination's categorization as important or unimportant is completely random and meaningless. To me, vegetarianism or keeping halal is trivial compared to, say, beer -- and there's quite a large Wikiproject associated with beer, so it should still fit into the relevant exceptions or whatever and stay. Silly nom, but anyway: keep all. --Daniel11 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, no. If there's already a WikiProject Beer then the category you're looking for is Category:WikiProject Beer participants. That's helpful to the Wikipedia infrastructure. The categories I've nominated are not and the only silly thing round here is these categories, thank you very much. --kingboyk 17:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Clearly people with a common interest like homebrewing or beer consumption, which are pursued as seriously as homosexuality or any of the other things that are "legitimate," are conducive to users communicating and working together on Wikipedia topics -- in addition to the Beer Project, which is also useful as a concrete piece of infrastructure for organizing Wikipedia editing, but is not the only useful kind of infrastructure. IMHO. --Daniel11 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or, for instance, Category:Wikipedians who listen to The KLF ;) --Daniel11 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lol, good shot! Affinity to a band is rather more lifechanging than liking strawberries though isn't it?! :) Let me just state now, though, in case these categories do get deleted - my beverages of choice are coffee and real ale (but not at the same time). --kingboyk 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, at least you've got good taste in beverages. ;) I agree with your example, but I think to make a general rule of it won't work as it depends so strongly on particular cases. E.g., the Beatles probably had a deeper effect on many people than strawberries, but beer seems a lot more meaningful than the Cheeky Girls. Not that there's anything wrong with strawberries or Cheeky Girls. Anyway, got to run, but I think at least some of those categories above are useful, at the very least the beer one! --Daniel11 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow. Thank you, Daniel11, for introducing me to the Cheeky Girls in your comment above. I have now acquired a copy of "The Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum)", and am listening to it, while consuming a beer. I'm not sure which is more meaningful. "Worst pop record of all time," huh? Wow. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You should get the video. If you like that kind of thing, which I do :) They're not misnamed, put it that way. --kingboyk 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, I saw it, and... it was kind of good, but it kind of sapped my will to live, much more than the song alone did. I think I'll say delete per nom. I'm in favor of letting Somnabot keep his "This user drinks beer" userbox, but there really isn't any need for these categories, and when we have to expend bot resources for managing these user categories (see WP:AN#User Categories), it's time to cut out a bunch of chaff. This user doesn't eat chaff. Maybe cheeky chaff... -GTBacchus(talk) 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm beginning to think that this will have a better chance of passing, if relisted with the the beverages, and commercial brands withdrawn (though they could be nominated later I presume). What do you think? - jc37 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In theory I have no objections, but I'm not really persuaded by the argument in favour of keeping the commercial categories. If anything I think they serve as an advertisement and are more deserving of deletion than the others. If you want to split the listing - or renominate - I don't mind, but I can't speak for the other participants of course :) --kingboyk 10:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, We're already hearing from beer... The idea is that inclusion in the category will show interest / bias. And as such, such categories are helpful to the editing community. Beer is an extension of that commercial preference (you don't think cola drinkers feel the same?). I'm starting to waver on the restaurant chain ones, however. Other than McD's and BK, there doesn't seem to be direct competition. I am guessing that most of us eat at whatever ones are nearby/convenient, just at different times. Compare to the cola drinker who won't drink anything but Pepsi, or the person who must have their Coke in the morning. The same goes for chocolate candy eaters - M&Ms, hershey bars, and so on. (Modifying my vote above. - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Although there is possibly limited potential for these categories, I feel that they at least create a better sense of community. Plus, I love my "This user drinks beer" Userbox. If developed properly the majority of the above categories could very well be instrumental or otherwise useful. Somnabot 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as if Users couldn't just list this kind of thing themselves; I don't think there's a need for a centralized list so I can browse people who drink root beer. Lambertman 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are building an encyclopedia, not swapping snippets of our lives with each other. Hiding Talk 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Candidates for WP:BJAODN. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, except halal and kosher categories, per above. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except those which are directly associated with a Wikiproject. --tjstrf 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Keep your "I eat apples" userboxes if you really need to tell the world that, but a category grouping all apple eaters (or swedish fish eaters, or RC cola drinkers, etc, etc) are not needed. --Kbdank71 10:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. the wub "?!" 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Doc 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Umbrella: Homosexual Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Oppose/Keep. per WP:SNOW and I Know when to step down. DemosDemon 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the listed categories into Category:Homosexual Wikipedians per Political Correctness and gender neutrality. DemosDemon 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

September 9[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User koi-0[edit]

Delete, userbox category for wikipedians who somehow find themselves without a koi pond. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Dittoheads[edit]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush Limbaugh, to match Category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Category:WWE fans of Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was megre to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE Tim! 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian World Wrestling Entertainment fans, to match Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball fans. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Category:Wikipedian LSU alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Merge—— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Louisiana State University. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

September 8[edit]

Wikipedians by alma mater[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of simple fixes here to a simple template. “Alma mater” is used consistently in these categories to mean “current or former student,” and makes no claim about what kind of school it is. So category:Wikipedians by high school makes no sense because many things we call high schools are in category:Wikipedians by alma mater.--Mike Selinker 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite honestly, I would prefer "Wikipedians from (school)" to include current and former students, but I don't want to nominate hundreds of categories for change based on that. If someone else does, we can talk about it.--Mike Selinker 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the name(s) should have "attended" or "graduated" in it/them (I don't think "from" is correct semantically). And we might as well do it now, rather than have to do this twice... I think one way in which we can expedite the process with be to edit the involved user boxes. If you would like to propose them all for the rename, I'll volunteer to make the UBX changes (presuming we can find them all - WP:GUS is making finding UBXs much more difficult). - jc37 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I'm just interested in accuracy, and since there is a "question" about the applicability of the phrase "alma mater". I think we should go with the more common usage (which would be: "graduated", or at least "attended". - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Wikipedian students[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename and Delete per nomination (some cats are getting deleted, some renamed)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) rename:[reply]

and delete:

Trying to match the occupational categories. The latter two have to go because of WP:CHILD.--Mike Selinker 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support last two, not sure about others - I don't know about other countries, but in Canada "college" refers specifically to "trade schools" (diploma programs) while "university" refers to "academic" schools (bachelor/master/PhD programs). They're not interchangeable. "Wikipedian university students" should be left alone. Likewise, Canada doesn't use the terms "freshmen" (much), "sophomore", "junior" and "senior" to refer to high school years. -HKMarks 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know that about "university". I've withdrawn that one. Not sure what to do about "freshmen" and "sophomores". I guess we could propose dumping all the high school students in the same category.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really have a problem with those. "First/second/third/fourth year high school students" would work, but really it depends on international usage. We actually use "Grade 9-12" here, so I don't know what the most common terms are. -HKMarks 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's not an equivalent, I guess we go with freshmen and sophomore until someone decides they really need "grade 9 students".--Mike Selinker 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename category:Wikipedians in college to category:Wikipedian college students. Keep Category:Wikipedian university students. Delete the rest as potentially age related categories, and because not every country has the US educational breakdown. - jc37 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Category:Media Center users[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Already closed on standard CFD Tim! 08:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Windows XP Media Center, to match Windows XP Media Center Edition. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Category:Windows users[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Already closed on standard CFD Tim! 08:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (Already closed on standard CFD)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Category:Caffeine Users[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian caffeine users, it is a another userbox category. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caffeine Users to Category:Wikipedian caffeine users

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 page.

September 7[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, recreation, nonsense. Kbdank71 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 page.

Category:Wikipedians that use Flash[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Flash, convention of Category:Wikipedians by software. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Adoble"? Grutness...wha? 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that, it's fixed now. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/September_2006&oldid=1223923753"