Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/June 2007

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

The result of the debate was delete. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Phenomenally a vanity category, somewhat élitist and utterly useless to the project. Sorry! Alison ☺ 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (and I know my iPhones)[reply]

• Close and take it to
  WP:UCFD. Otto4711 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Moved here as suggested above. --Bduke 10:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, serves no collaborative purpose. ^
  [omg plz] 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - collaboration would be better served through the single relevant article's talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course. Shalom ^Hello 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With very exceptions, ownership of a product does not imply an above average ability or desire to edit articles related to that product. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cmon you have to let Swatjester show off! How about "Wikipedian interviewed by the New York Times"? LOL -- Y not? 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not myspace. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because I am lucky my phone has twelve buttons. This cat is useless. --wpktsfs 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what phone you use has no possible collaborative merit. --Haemo 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity category. Feed this cat to the dogs... ;)--Ramdrake 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One user, no collaborative possibilities. Another userbox with an appended (unnecessary) category. Horologium t-c 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is actually to store all of the alma mater categories into one main family. - Presidentman 11:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Serves as a parent category to hundreds/thousands of useful categories. These are incredibly useful for collaboration on school and university articles and I myself have used them in the past for collaboration. --- RockMFR 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Serves as basic information about a user, allowing collaboration on an obvious subject.--Mike Selinker 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per JDG and RockMFR. JRG 03:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per all of the above. It quite clearly does provide a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 09:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I also meant all the subcats. I thought that was implied, sorry. ^
  [omg plz] 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • NEVER ASSUME that ANYTHING is implied. Always assume your audience is composed of idiots who can't infer anything for themselves. Morgan Wick 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not touching this one... --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good topic for a new essay: Wikipedia: Assume good stupidity--WaltCip 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, there is
          WP:ASS. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete per nominator, I can't see what purpose this might serve. Riana (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're surrounded by it.--WaltCip 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is comparable to the "religion" debate from last weak, without the loaded baggage. This system of university listings has been established over years, and too many users find in meaningful to just throw it away. And of course there is the weak argument that alma maters of University X will want to collaborate on University X articles. Shalom ^Hello 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Serves an obvious collaborative purpose of connecting people who went to the same school. On top of that, there's the less legalistic and more realistic concern that people might just be interested in organizing categories like this on Wikipedia. To delete it would be to etch off the harmless hard work of a few like-minded people, to smash a sandcastle. Or break a butterfly on a wheel. Or what have you.
  -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this. We're not myspace. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Bona fide collaborative potential (as per RockMFRM and Mike Selinker) should trump
  WP:NOT#SOCIALNET should only be invoked in the absence of any real potential for collaboration, which is obviously not the case here.--Ramdrake 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The potential for collaboration here is enormous, considering the number of subcats contained within. Unlike a lot of the userbox-related cats, which often imply only a causal association with the subject, someone who graduated from a particular university is going to possess more than just trivial knowledge of their school. Horologium t-c 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The people saying "a lot of people find this meaningful" need to go read
  WP:EFFORT. Morgan Wick 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Smash this sandcastle. You don't need a category to collaborate. --Kbdank71 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I went back and forth on this one for a while. There are some universities,
  UConn's a good example). I think that for most articles about universities/colleges, collaboration would be more efficient by using the talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - many people identify more with their alma mater than with the city or state they are currently living in. Unless you propose to delete ALL "Wikipedian by X" categories, I can't see jettisoning this one. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:09, 3 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per precedent. ^

• Category:User cs-0
• Category:User ig-0
• Category:User nd-0
• Category:User sn-0
• Category:User tg-0

Looks like someone didn't get the memo that 0-level categories were all deleted before. All should probably be speedied, listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge both to

• Merge per your alternate suggestion. Bladestorm 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 03:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - interested in, yes. Ambiguous "like", notso much. --Haemo 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per nom. Horologium t-c 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not quite sure why we should merge Wikipedians who have simply stated in a userbox that they watch/read anime/manga into the category for Wikipedians that collaborate on these articles, when they have added themselves by their own choice. When someone goes searching for help in a user category, it would be useful if they actually found someone who works in the articles, and these people are not necessarily that. This would dilute
  t 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It would seem that a large majority of users under "interested" are also under the other two categories. That mixed with Dmcdevit's comments leads me to believe that deletion would be the best option. -- Jelly Soup 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the both of them. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to know who is interested in what, only who is able and willing to contribute. Users who fall under this category should join
  Booya ^Bazooka 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Dmcdevit. --Kbdank71 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Enthusiasts are needed to improve the quality of the articles on Anime and Manga at Wikipedia, so a category would help with collaboration. Furthermore, people who are interested in one are generally interested in the other (to some varying degree) as the two forms of media are inexorably entangled with eachother. One category should be more than enough. אמר Steve Caruso 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dmcdevit. Merging will dilute the usefulness of the target category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:44, 5 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete right on this one. Too narrow. DGG 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is pretty much unambiguous. --Haemo 08:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dmcdevit. As for the above comment, this category does not include any users (let alone "a number"). It includes only the template. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Category is empty. Even the creator doesn't use the userbox. Horologium t-c 23:13, 2 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. under the same rationale used to delete Category:Wikipedians who visit countries. Same idea, smaller scale. Horologium t-c 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the next above. --Haemo 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this would nearly include all American Wikipedians by default, as Americans can visit a different state anytime they go on the interstate or U.S. Highway system. - Presidentman 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:24, 30 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. not useful for collaboration, only two members in group (and three userbox pages). Horologium t-c 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Might be useful if better populated, since it is relevant to editing. DGG 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the category "Wikipedian qualified to have a useful opinion on the subject" is probably about as populated as this one; and I doubt there's any overlap. --Haemo 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any category that begins "Wikipedians who think..." anything is on shaky ground. Don't people know that Wikipedians don't think?? :) ... Shalom ^Hello 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreeing with Haemo, this group is unlikely to serve any purpose since members' opinions probably have little relevance with their knowledge and ability to contribute on the subject. ~ 
  Booya ^Bazooka 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, this category somewhat shares the same structure as Category:Wikipedians who believe all races are one. I can see the collaborative aim of this cat, but the concept of Many-worlds interpretation is not very popular outside physics community, so the cat is in under-populated state. I suggest changing the title to Category:Wikipedians who believe the many worlds interpretation is true which makes more sense. AW 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I concur with AW name modification suggestion. The theory is starting to see widespread use in works of entertainment, the cat makes constructive collaboration on those articles more likely. Also I don't think we have a lot of people with knowledge of quantam physics running around wikipedia. If a group has enough knowledge of it to view one sub-theory as true, the members have enough knowledge and motivation to contribute to other articles. There is definite collaborative use for this category.Horrorshowj 15:46, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not useful, only one person in group. Horologium t-c 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one, unlike Category:Wikipedians who survived Philmont is not a basis for collaboration, and is redundant with that category. --Bduke 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no help. AW 14:04, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this is a group to which everyone should belong. Non-collaborative and can be expressed solely through the userbox. Horologium t-c 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyone should leave an edit summary. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hdt83. --Haemo 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To summarize:ILIKEIT. People on both sides of the iisue need to stop with photocopier-style !votes. Horologium t-c 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Horologium - I'm just trying to balance things out here. There are at least 3 Deletionists leaving these bot-like votes, so we need a little Inclusionist action here. User:Bduke left me a rather snitty message to the effect I was doing more harm than good. That message prompted me to peek back to this page and, lo, while there were almost no Keep votes in any of these subcats when I was wearing out my ctrl - v keys the other day, now there are plenty. I feel like Johnny Appleseed. JDG 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded to you on your talk page. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your characterization of me. Horologium t-c 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While it is true that everyone should be in this category, the vast majority could not be. Have a look through recent changes if you don't believe me. The collaborative purpose is to improve observation of
  Manual of Style, if that isn't a valid reason for a user category/template, I don't know what is. Adam McCormick 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment How does this category improve observation of
  WP:MoS? I agree with you that far too many people don't use edit summaries correctly (or at all), but this category does nothing to correct the problem. It's fundamentally a supercilious and somewhat sanctimonious "I'm better than the unwashed masses" category that does nothing to further collaboration. If you want to increase usage of edit summaries, push for a change that would require all editors to include an edit summary with each edit. This category is not going to accomplish that goal, however. Horologium t-c 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It improves them the same way leaving a message on a talk page does, by creating community recognition of those who follow the rule and the best practices. What does having Barnstars accomplish if not to reinforce that the community values those that follow the guidelines to the best of their ability. I would much rather enchourage the right choice and leave it up to each individual editor than to force everyone to leave an edit summary. I want to increase the spirit of cooperation that leads to edit summaries and to help people see what edit summaries are good for. The userbox itself doesn't accomplish that goal, but it does encourage it. You say it does nothing to facilitate collaboration but I put it to you, would you rather collaborate with someone who is concientous enough to summarize all their edits or someone who doesn't believe that helping other editors is worth their time? I'm sorry you percieve following the rules and guidelines as sanctimonious but I'd prefer to celebrate those who follow them to the letter. Adam McCormick 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You do understand that we are not discussing the userbox, which would remain after the category is deleted, don't you? (Userbox deletion would be discussed at
  WP:MFD.) The category itself is not useful for collaboration, because nobody is going to look for people who use the edit summary block to work together on an article, especially since there are only two people in the category. Horologium t-c 12:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for pandering to me. Yes, I thouroughly understand that this is a category being deleted, but as I created the box and category in tandem, it's a bit hard for me to seperate them. Under the argument that there just aren't enough people in the category, I'm fine with this being deleted, but "Previous Deletion" is a CSD category and so I would not want to be kept from recreating the category should (significantly) more users add the box to their pages. Adam McCormick 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt to pander on my part; when you started discussing the userbox, an alarm went off in my head; there are a lot of people who don't realize that deleting the category does not delete the userbox as well. As to the category being recreated, I think my position on the category should be manifestly obvious from my earlier response, but if some 50 or more users were to add the userbox, that might be sufficient justification to bring the subject up for discussion; if you were to recreate it, I would strongly suggest that you add something on the talk page addressing the issue, so that if an editor adds a speedy tag, he will see the note in place. I still believe that the category does not have a place, regardless of the number of users in the category, but I am not the be-all and end-all of what does and does not belong here. Horologium t-c 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Edit summaries should be a given, everyone should use them. --wpktsfs 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Should" being the operative word, most edits don't have them Adam McCormick 03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The stated purpose of this category is "community recognition" of those who always use edit summaries. While that is certainly a good goal, I do not believe that the category system is the appropriate venue. Barnstars are (or should be) a rather informal system of recognition where one editor commends another. In this case, an editor would have to add him or herself to the category and there is no interaction between users. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:44, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nice sentiment, but not useful for collaboration and can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do, but I don't think a category helps me with this, or writing an encyclopedia. --Haemo 08:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop copying vote. AW 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, userbox is enough. AW 14:06, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Potentially divisive, non-collaborative, can be expressed through the userbox. Horologium t-c 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per JDG. And how anyone could suggest this is divisive is beyond me. Let's leave this as is. JRG 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This might have a purpose on Wikisource, which hosts at least three Bible translations into English - but not here. Shalom ^Hello 20:29, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom; furthermore, any reason why you haven't just nominated the majority of
  Booya ^Bazooka 13:26, 2 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is a userbox category. No collaboration potential. Horologium t-c 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the users in this category are there because they added the userbox, which categorised them automatically. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- JDG took the words out of my mouth on this one. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JDG – it's the business of wikipedians to regulate the encyclopedia, not each other.
  -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I can see the potential utility of a category for users who have travelled extensively around certain areas, but "all of the US states" is quite arbitrary. ~ 
  Booya ^Bazooka 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Visiting a state does not endow one with an improved ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it nor necessarily any kind of interest in the state. The breadth of this category (all U.S. states) makes it doubly unusable. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unpopulated. - Presidentman 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I might want to start the "Users who have been to every provence in Canada" cat, Wikipedia is not myspace. --wpktsfs 14:46, 3 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete under the same rationale used to delete Category:Wikipedians who visit countries. Same concept, smaller scale. Horologium t-c 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good argument by Horologium. Shalom ^Hello 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too peddling. AW 13:44, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This is a subcat in Category:Wikipedians by religion. It should already be marked for deletion. Horologium t-c 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to precedent mentioned by Horologium - decision has been made to remove "beliefs" categories. ~ 
  Booya ^Bazooka 19:20, 2 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is a "not" category, and it's not useful as a consequence. Horologium t-c 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. New name for a book exchange, but not something that has any collaborative potential beyond the one article. The experience can be expressed with a userbox. Horologium t-c 03:56, 5 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The sole member is already in the parent category, so a merge is not necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^
  [omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. no potential for collaboration; can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge into parent - Only one member, the cat's creator, and it's been that way for months. Would have some potential if it actually had some members.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

• Delete - On the order of 97% of all humans fall into this category. Being heterosexual serves no conceivable collaborative purpose. --Haemo 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think 90-95% is more accurate, but the principle still stands. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I'd like to note that a serious storm will be kicked up if the opposing categories are nominated, especially since there is already a WikiProject in place. Deleting this cat is likely to instigate a rather WP:POINTish nomination of the LGBT cats. It's not going to be from me, but almost certainly somebody will do so, using this as precedent. Just something for participants in this discussion to consider. Horologium t-c 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the problem. Categorizing based on homosexuality is no more useful for collaboration than heterosexuality. I don't think it would be disruptive to nominate them.
    t 03:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, I more-or-less agree with you, insofar as there is a (very large, active and well-run) WikiProject in place. However, I think that suggesting deletion of those cats is going to encounter opposition. There is a good deal of duplication, overlap and interlinking in that subcat (which should be addressed, and really shouldn't be that controversial) but unlike the Hetero cat, which is useless for collaboration, many of the various LGBT cats can be useful. There are a lot of LGBT sub-cultures that don't have much in common except for their sexual orientation, and a
      Bear Community (to choose two wildly divergent and currently extant subcats). Horologium t-c 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. This is impossible. Anybody who's not in this category is considered automatically gay or bi! This doesn't work one bit.--WaltCip 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No way this could be used to build the encyclopedia. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This will leave a gap in the parent Category:Wikipedians by sexuality meaning someone will come along and re-create this category again just to rebalance the parent cat. Perhaps Wikipedians by sexuality should also be deleted or renamed? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Would contain the majority of all users by default, so it is not useful. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Who are you people to restrict terms Wikipedians choose to define themselves with? The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. I am for almost pure "libertarianism" on all non-encyc pages, and for strict quality control of encyc. pages. You folks are mixing up the two and are trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody here is restrict terms with which Wikipedians choose to define themselves. Categories are not about self-definition; they are about grouping pages. Anyone is free to define oneself as they choose on the text of their user page.
    t 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Understand this - the precedence that we have based the user category nominations on for the past year: we categorize for CATEGORIZATION, not for SELF-IDENTITY. You seem to dislike the whole UCFD process altogether. Why not nominate
    WP:UCFD for deletion, then, if you feel it so unjust?--WaltCip 04:16, 3 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

• At the very least re-name to "Wikipedians interested in BDSM". --Haemo 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename per Haemo. -- Jelly Soup 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename per Haemo. It may be interesting to know that someone is kinky, but not particularly relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am striking my suggestion to rename for the reason that being X does is not equivalent to being interested in X (e.g., someone who is married is not necessarily interested in editing marriage-related articles). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The rename is not a good idea; not all kinky sex is BDSM-related. If there is enough support, someone can create a WikiProject for "Alternative Sexuality" or something along those lines. Horologium t-c 02:04, 29 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

• Comment Category:Transsexual Wikipedians is the larger, more appropriate group. Nobody has proposed deleting that group. Horologium t-c 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia isn't a support group. --Kbdank71 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as a "wish" category. People wish to have, be, or not be many things, but none of them are relevant to building an encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Black Falcon.Horologium t-c 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Creates precedent for any other "wish" category. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Oh, darn, this quest to rid Wikipedia of any inter-affiliation is so tiresome. There are plenty of people with gender dysphoria who would not consider themselves transsexuals, for a multitude of reasons. Some people also use this tag alongside 'wishes not to be female', because they affiliate themselves with neither gender. If the nominators are so concerned about 'wishing,' perhaps the category could be renamed to Wikipedians with gender dysphoria. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Black Falcon tells it all. AW 13:36, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As it is a very popular e-mail service. - Presidentman 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment-shall we start categories for people who eat very popular brands of pickles? How about people who use very popular brands of toothpaste? If we keep this, it should be merged into Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Vista, as it is a subset of that group. Windows Live Mail only runs on Vista systems. Horologium t-c

• Delete - Its simpler in this case for editors to collaborate via the single relevant article's talk page rather than via a category.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nominator, Elipongo, and my comment above. If kept, should be merged. Horologium t-c 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Using a general product does not mean one can contribute encyclopedic content about it (remember,
  no original research). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 2 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete ^

• Keep No reason to delete popular software categories. - Presidentman 11:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The standard for user categories is whether they hold collaborative potential. Content contributions to article should be supported by reliable sources on the subject; the simple fact of using a given software does not give users access to such sources, knowledge of such sources, or even a desire to search for such sources. I see no reason to retain this category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Black Falcon. Collaboration can be accomplished on the KDE talk page. Horologium t-c 03:36, 7 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep (with a nod to Booyabazooka's idea for reorganization). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Flash, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Illustrator, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe InDesign, Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Photoshop

• Strong keep. The Photoshop category is one of the most useful collaborative categories we have. These users have experience using Photoshop and can be extremely helpful when dealing with images. --- RockMFR 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per RockMFR. If I had to get an image fixed beyond what I was capable of, this cat would be where I looked. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have to agree with RockMFR on this one. This is an example of a category that can be used to further the encyclopedia. Horologium t-c 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per RockMFR. - Presidentman 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RockMFR and Hologrium. This category is directly relevant to a skill that can be used for improving the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete parent category only - I object to how these categories are organized. Does it really matter that these four products are made by Adobe? I think it would be much more useful to follow the model set by
  Booya ^Bazooka 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This might not be a bad idea. Either way, it's just an organizational decision. Either we'll have one category in Category:Wikipedians by software or four. --- RockMFR 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RockMFR. --wpktsfs 01:26, 3 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

Procedural question: any reason why this category is named three times?--Ramdrake 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing other than my error. Thank you for cleaning it up for me.

t 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. We don't have a standard on "Wikipedians who use (brand of software)," so in absence of one, we should keep them all.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The standard for categories should be whether they are at all useful for encyclopedic collaboration. A category for users who "know how to report spam to blocklisters" is not particularly useful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Collaboration can be accomplished through the talk page; category is too limited. Horologium t-c 01:57, 6 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (

• Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as apparently too limited in scope, as it appears to offer help collaborating on only one article; the purpose is better served by a glance at history and talk. We could even categorize people by whether they prefer to play as certain races or factions, in RTS games, but if we're looking for collaborative usefulness, even categorizing people by single games seems excessive, in nine out of ten cases. Perhaps by series or genre. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Collaboration can be accomplished through the talk page of the one article. Category is too limited. Horologium t-c 01:56, 6 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Although there are few comments, the extremely narrow focus of this category is an important consideration as well. — Carl (

• Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too narrow in scope, effectively limited to one article only. I remember playing this game, I think it's great, but if I'd like to know which other Wikipedians are interested in helping with the Kingdom of Loathing article, it'll be a lot easier for me to find them using the history tab and the talk page, wouldn't you say? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have categories for many games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mike's earnest copy-pasting aside, the argument doesn't seem to apply -- UCFD is, on the grand scheme of things, a very new process, and it's likely that several of these other categories he's alluding to will, at some point, be discussed here. The usefulness of this particular category appears to be limited to one article, and a quick peek at an article history page will tell us more than a category with two users in it. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This helps with collaboration on our many Sega Genesis articles. Yes, we have broad WikiProjects, but their member categories aren't very helpful when it comes to specific systems. --- RockMFR 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have categories for many game systems, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have categories for many websites, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category is for users who "have an account on
  does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 2 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have categories for many websites, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How is it useful to know whether another user has an account on another website? Also, the category includes only one user. Finally, the existence of similar (potentially equally inappropriate) categories
  does not validate the existence of this one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Category is already empty. — Carl (

Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hanuman devotees, or just delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of the category, give full Support to rename this category.

ARUNKUMAR P.R 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by religion. Being a member of a religion does not endow one with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that religion. Also, religious categories are potentially divisive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename perhaps to Wikipedians interested in Hanuman. It still may be a little specific but I hoping to find more people to collaborate on Hanuman-related (ie. The Hindu epic Ramayana related) articles. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would require changing the text of the userbox. Someone who is a "Hanuman devotee" is not necessarily interested in editing articles related to Hanuman. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't mind if someone changed the text. At the moment, it doesn't serve too much purpose. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Are we seriously going to have a "Category:X devotees" for all 33 million forms of God in Hinduism? Bakaman 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Broaden or delete If the creator wants to keep the userbox as it is, I prefer deletion of the category. If the text in the userbox changes to User interested in the Ramayana I would like to keep the category as a useful tool for finding users to improve Ramayana (which includes Hanuman and more) articles. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My knowledge of Hinduism is practically nil, but I noticed a large number of very thinly populated Hindu categories when I went through and untagged all of the religion cats that were tagged during the big CFD. Would it be out of line to suggest merging all of them into a single Hindu category? This is not intended to be snide or to disparage anyone's beliefs, but a polytheistic religion like this can end up very fractured (and thus an obvious target for deletion) but a single unified category might work. It might also facilitate a degree of collaboration that currently does not exist. I realize that it may require some alterations to the userboxen, but that is an easy fix. Horologium t-c 03:14, 5 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a no-brainer (pun intended). Joke categories are not helpful to Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-sense category, which has no redeeming value whatsoever. --Haemo 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. -- Jelly Soup 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedu Delete. Nonsense category; another example of userbox creation spilling over into cats. Horologium t-c 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BRAINS!!!! per nom.--WaltCip 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY DEATH Death to the zombies! Wait, aren't they undead? I'm confused, anyway speedy delete. Nonsense. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A make-believe categorization can't help build the encyclopedia. It should also be noted that this category is an orphan, it's recursively listed as its own parent. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:15, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong naming convention, not to mention useless. VegaDark (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete using an email client is very general, and does not imply any level of expertise in subject matter. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Second that. Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another category with only one user. Not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 23:35, 30 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a Dilbert joke, not a collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:46, 27 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I stated below. —MJCdetroit 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serves no collaborative purpose. It's a broad, general, attribute with no clear expertise involved. The fact that it might make Wikipedia more "fun" is not a reason to keep it. --Haemo 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Until the U.S.A. undergoes full metrication this category will be too broad. When the day comes that it is rare to find people who know that a pint's a Pound the world round, we can revive it. (Oh wait, that's United States customary units, but you get the point anyway) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:33, 29 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. And everyone knows that the real meaning of life is 42. MER-C 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category namespace is
  not the place to espouse one's personal beliefs. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - literally billions of people do this. It's too general to ever serve a collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - See my comment below for Wikipedians who keep kosher but fill in Halal related articles instead. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly suggest centralizing the discussion in the "kosher" section immediately below. --Eliyak T·C 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not such a good idea. While the concepts are similar, the religious beliefs behind them are quite different, and moving a muslim who observes Halal into a category describing Jewish dietary restrictions might be seen as insulting or needlessly provocative. My suggestion for this is Keep. I would recommend a delete before a merge for this cat. Horologium t-c 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I only wanted to centralize the discussion. Obviously the categories are not identical. --Eliyak T·C 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A reasonable user preference category, and an exception to the "no foods" dictum from a year back.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep consistently with the kosher cat below. -- Y not? 00:47, 3 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher and merge Category:Wikipedians who keep Kosher (capitalised) into it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who keep Kosher added to this nom (note caps). --- RockMFR 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - see my comment on Halal. --Haemo 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & merge - There shouldn't be two categories, but there is plenty of collaborative potential for articles such as
  Cholov Yisroel, Glatt, etc. ad nauseam. Kashrut can be a complicated and confusing subject and being able to find others who know and keep those laws can aid greatly in improving the many articles that relate to the subject. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Using a userbox that announces adherence to a set of dietary rules is not the same as contributing to the articles, or even being knowledgeable in the topic. If I were looking for collaborators, I'd go to the
    t 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Unless they changed the relevant userboxen since last I looked (admittedly a while back) this category isn't included in them. I had to specifically add it to my user cats on the bottom of my user page. As to making an inquiry at
      WP:JEWC, you may not realize this but many (and if I may be so bold as to say, most) Jews don't keep Kosher at all. Many who do only do so to a limited extent. Those who have a good working knowledge of Kashrut aren't as common as it may seem at first; especially if you yourself live in one of those cities where there happen to be many observant Jews. Frankly this user category is indeed the fastest and easiest way for Kashrut knowledgeable people to find each other for collaboration or for someone to find us to pose a query. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I was wrong about the userbox, Template:User kosher includes it. My mistake. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge per Elipongo. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dmcdevit. -- Jelly Soup 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ——Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & merge I came to vote delete, but was convinced by Elipongo's reasoning. Kashrut can be an opaque and confusing system, and I very much expect that people who practice it know substantially more than others about its various intricacies. This is useful for collaboration. nadav (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Merge, per Elipongo. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge as per Elipongo. Horologium t-c 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A reasonable user preference category, and an exception to the "no foods" dictum from a year back. (What is the "Merge" referring to?)--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Riana (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No collaborative potential; can be expressed via userbox. Horologium t-c 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see how this category could be used to build the encyclopedia; besides
  Jeeves is already beyond saving.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells 06:51, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Riana (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "wanting" to live somewhere cannot help anyone, ever, improve the encyclopedia. --Haemo 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Haemo. Horologium t-c 22:12, 29 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- None of these types of categories has any particular value to Wikipedia, but they do have value to Wikipedians. The erosion of all these encyclopedially-irrelevant, yet socially-interesting categories is taking some of the fun out of being a Wikipedian, and may result in a gradual exodus of valuable editors. I cannot offer any reason why this category in particular is more important to keep than others of a similar ilk, but I give this "vote" on the basis that I am opposed to the removal of such categories in general, and I'm a mixed-handed Wikipedian! -- Scjessey 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are conflating the category with the user page. No one is limiting your self expression, but you don't need a category for that.
    t 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - no collaborative merit to this category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --I completely agree with Scjessey. Yes I do know the difference between categories and user space. If you take the "fun" (as scjessey put it) and interesting quirks away from wikipedia; you'll only make it a sterile, dull place. Unless the category is somehow divisive (which none of these seem to be), then I don't see the harm in keeping them. Go find something else to delete like this:
  Tossed salad. —MJCdetroit 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Maybe I was uncler. My point was that deleting a categry does not take the fun out of anything. You can still say this on your user page, without the useless category. How does the category make it less dull?
    t 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete all of dmcdevit's nominations in today's log. They are indiscriminate user categories with no practical value. I'm not too concerned about social communication between users that the categories might enable. Shalom ^Hello 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Knowing who is mixed handed or not is not helpful to any aspect of wikipedia in the least. If users wish to have this information, they can do it on their userpage. Having a category is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being "fun" or "social" is not the point of a userpage. This is an encyclopedia, not Myspace. --Haemo 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "None of these types of categories has any particular value to Wikipedia". Enough said. MER-C 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hey, everybody! Let's play "User Category"! Let's all come up with a funny category, and everybody will join it and have fun and laugh! ... See how LOW we're getting when we have to resort to THIS kind of "social gratification"? --WaltCip 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, Dmcdevit, and Shalom. Horologium t-c 13:03, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Only one user in the category. No real purpose to aid in collaboration. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category barely makes sense, let alone serves any collaborative purpose. --Haemo 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a one-user category with no article links. Interest in (whatever) game can be expressed through the three userboxen created by the user for this topic. Horologium t-c 13:10, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, too specific to be collaborative.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:30, 25 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It has more than one user in it > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete using a given music player is a very general activity which belies no special expertise in the subject matter. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Haemo. If there are categories for Winamp, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Rhapsody, or any others, they should go too. (The ITunes cats just got nuked.) Horologium t-c 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually, there are NO users in this group; the "one member" is itself (it's a member of its own group). A little recursion seems to be common with many of these less useful categories. Horologium t-c 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no collaborative merit, and empty to boot. --Haemo 09:38, 27 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• &Delete only 5 users.DGG 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of categories for software use, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Belated signature, — Carl (

An subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who love cats, Category:Wikipedians who love horses, Category:Wikipedians who own Tamagotchis, Category:Wikipedians who own birds, Category:Wikipedians who own cats, Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches, Category:Wikipedians who love dogs, Category:Wikipedians who own dogs, Category:Wikipedians who own fish, Category:Wikipedians who own guinea pigs

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are a great many WPedians in this set of categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use boxes of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. DGG
• Keep. I see no reason how this category makes Wikipedia more like a Myspace. Suppose, for instance, I would like to verify information on the Cockroach article that may need some personal experience. A category sure beats sifting through a whole bunch of userboxen looking for someone who has a cockroach for a pet. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we cannot "verify information" by requesting personal anecdotes from someone with them. That's directly contrary to
  verifiability guidelines --Haemo 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Having a pet is no more collaborative than having a child. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all - Knowing who "owns" or "loves" certian animals is absolutely useless to Wikipedia. If people want to collaborate on articles relating to these animals, they should have an appropriately named category, such as "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on cat related topics". VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Better yet, have them join some children WikiProjects of
    improve me
    ] 04.07.07 1942 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. No collaborative potential, asking these people for information regarding pets would be original research. MER-C 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per MER-C. Category:Wikipedians interested in dogs and the like are valid categories, but owning or loving a pet does not imply an interest in editing articles related to it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, no purpose of collaboration, especially the "cockroaches" one. AW 13:35, 4 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, I think only professionals would need to be consulted.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:37, 25 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; 184 think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect Dmcdevit, Cordesat, , Flonight, or me. DGG 23:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - playing table football is a very general activity which millions of people do. It belies no special expertise or incentive to contribute to an encyclopedia. No collaborative merit. Oh, and I believe that ensuring that Wikipedia does not begin the slow slide into becoming a social networking site based around an encyclopedia is a very good thing to be doing. --Haemo 09:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has one user in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The pages in Category:Alternate reality games can get out of hand when a particular game is active and people want to spread every minor clue or speculative material that exists. Any users in it may be consulted as potentially familiar with the notability of individual ARGs at AfD. There's only one user because s/he has not listed it on userbox pages for others to see. –Pomte 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete un-needed overlap with the individual games. just one user. DGG 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has two users in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have lots of categories for games, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Delete, personal opinions add no validity to any contribution you might make.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; 277 think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect Dmcdevit, Cordesat, Esprit15d, Flonight, or me. DGG 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, DGG, it *is* divisive; I, for one, do not support many of the aims of Amnesty International, nor do I appreciate their criticism of my country for its application of the death penalty, something which is supported by a sizable majority. I don't advoate deleting the userbox (I find it irritating, like many, but what people put on their personal page is their business), but this spills over into the rest of the project, when it should be confined to user pages (and only user pages). Horologium t-c 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - supporting an organization is a very general thing, and belies no special expertise or incentive to contribute to articles about it, or anything else. Has no collaborative merit -- I also feel that preventing Wikipedia from becoming a social networking site is a very good thing to be doing. --Haemo 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP has had to some extent the role of a social networking site since the day it began; you are of course completely right that it should be much more than a social networking site, and appropriately this element is a very small portion of WP. I don't think these categories put it into danger. DGG 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as DGG. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as: 1)not a likely source of social networking, if any, 2) some of the supporters of this organization may be very cognizant about it and 3)supporting Amnesty International as a category may help POV situations by disclosing up front a potentially significant ideological position.--Ramdrake 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fine as a userbox, lousy as a category. The "ideological disclosure" cited by Ramdrake can be expressed through a userbox. This should have been deleted with all of the other political categories. Horologium t-c 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1)The "other political categories" (I take it you mean Wikipedians by political ideology) in fact didn't get deleted so your argument is void 2)There are people opposed to having userboxes on their user page and who will use categories instead. What is wrong with giving users a choice?--Ramdrake 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Hologrium's argument is not void as long as he or she believes the other political categories should have been deleted. In fact, the argument is contained primarily in the first two sentences. (2) There are no users in this category. It is a parent category for one other category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, raising another category as an example when in fact that category was kept is kind of a counter-example to me. If the other category should serve as an example, I see that it would be an argument to keep it.--Ramdrake 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a variation on Wikipedians by politics, which does allow for collaboration.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a "support" category and for an organisation whose actions are controversial. It is essentially a less divisive version of something like Category:Wikipedians who support the Provisional Irish Republican Army. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you mean you consider Amnesty International as some sort of paramilitary organization??? I see a world of difference between the two; I would even venture that Amnesty International is possibly less controversial than PeTA.--Ramdrake 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe ... of course not. I view AI to be an organisation whose actions are controversial for many, not unlike the IRA or PETA. Now, it may be less controversial than PETA or the IRA, but it's still controversial. I support AI, but I also recognise that many dislike it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the precision. However, I can't help but wonder what makes people think controversial==divisive. That's not obvious to me. But that's a philosphical discussion for another place and time. :)--Ramdrake 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - same as above. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm ... I recommended deleting the category. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 3 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great userbox, lousy category. Should have been deleted with all of the other political categories. Horologium t-c 18:41, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep 3 eds. think it has no purpose--199 think otherwise. Rampant paternalism. DGG 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a "not" category; and "rampant paternalism" is not a reason to keep an article; voting is evil. --Haemo 09:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ever hear of "blind following the blind" DGG?--WaltCip 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Though I oppose the unprofessional manner in which it was nominated, and though I think it would make a very good userbox, I really can't see any significant collaborative potential here. Bladestorm 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fine as a userbox, lousy category. How does this aid collaboration? The premise behind the category is fundamentally a political statement, and this should have been deleted with all of the other political cats. Horologium t-c 18:39, 1 July 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Furthermore, this category only has two users in it. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, too broad to be collaborative. Actually just an "other" category.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, broad, subjective, useless. --Xiaphias 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two users only, and not a very obvious category. It's defined only as "not libertarian".DGG 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete undefined category (not linked to an article) with only two members. Not category, as stated in category page. Horologium t-c 11:40, 29 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (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 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --
  desat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would like an actual explanation of exactly how this harms the encyclopedia. Those who find such categories to serve a purpose needn't use them. If we made everyone vote yes or no when they joined, only then would it be excessive. DGG 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --
  WP:NOHARM is not a valid inclusion criterion. --Haemo 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom -- strike, disregard, and discount the
  WP:NOHARM vote W.E.P.--WaltCip 04:11, 29 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.