Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category can only facilitate collaboration on a single article. The single user in the category should use the article's talk page for this - If we allowed a category for each individual article to be created, that would be over 2 million categories allowable. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the capitalization here is correct; it does not refer to the dessert, but rather the licensed character used in greeting cards and toys. Strawberry Shortcake largely replaced Holly Hobbie in the 1980's. In any case, it's a one-person category, so I can support deletion. Horologium t-c 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, caught that before your edit, and changed reasoning appropriately :P. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Revise - But, if there are other people who use this category for their pages, then deletion may not be necessary... Blake Gripling 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Horologium; user categories are not needed for topics with such limited scope (i.e. 1-2 articles) because collaboration could take place just as well on the article's talk page. There's no need to find anyone ... just post a notice on the talk page and any interested editors will see it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Strawberry shortcake is the title of several series, not just a character in those series. (Compare to Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond.) And I believe that there are more than just 1 or 2 related articles? - jc37 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are fewer than a dozen (a "whatlinkshere" search of mainspace entries, eliminating all of the Care Bears stuff, reveals a handful of TV specials/movies, a video game or two, and a few other related entries). For some reason, {{Care Bears}} has a link to Strawberry Shortcake, and about 85% of the inbound links to the SS article are from articles with that template. Horologium t-c 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a "related changes" on the article, and there seem to be a lot more than that. (Character pages, for example.) In any case, there are more than 1 or 2 : ) - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, single user category cannot be collaborative by nature. ^
  ^{[omg plz]} 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete with whipped cream... With creator as only member doesn't seem to be bent to collaboration.
  SkierRMH 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Categorizing by everything on earth people like leads to ridiculous proliferation of categories. Doczilla 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an argument to delete all the "by interest" categories : ) - jc37 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Somehow, I don't see that as something you plan to pursue in the immediate future. (big grin) Horologium t-c 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh... you never can tell (wink and a bigger grin) : ) - jc37 21:41, 9 November 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 as an empty category, per creator and sole contributor's request. (

Does not facilitate collaboration, joke category. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom; nonsense cat. Horologium t-c 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as creator.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 22:42, 31 October 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 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete single user has created category for user's subpages; inappropriate use of categories. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  CSD G6 (uncontroversial housekeeping) and inform the user of the Special:Whatlinkshere function. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Tons of precedent to delete categories like this. VegaDark (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. - jc37 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete user's personal category which serves no purpose when all of that user's contributions are already linked together. Doczilla 05:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per all of the above, and nom. Dreamy ^§ 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - G6, but whomever deletes should tell the user about the Whatlinkshere function, simply deleting without informing of the correct way would be a bit
  (talk) 04:08, 6 November 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, C1. ^

Category:Legião Urbana fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete unlikely to foster cooperation toward building the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This category is empty. Horologium t-c 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty category. Doczilla 05:24, 1 November 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 rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who read DTWOF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Dykes to Watch Out For, convention of Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the fact that strip is freely available online (if it was not easily accessible, I could see the collaborative value); also, the mere fact of having read a comic strip does not imply any above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic content (excluding lengthy plot descriptions of the type discouraged by
  WP:PLOT) or a desire to contribute encyclopedic content about it. If no consensus to delete, rename per nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Dykes to Watch Out For. I would also like to see the rest of Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips similarly renamed en masse, rather than piecemeal. How does one add categories to a discussion? — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In general, the scope of an in-progress nomination may be expanded only when there isn't any real disagreement between participants (and if the nominator doesn't object, I suppose). This isn't codified anywhere, but it's how most cases seem to be handled. If you feel that the others should be renamed, I think you should start a new nomination, since at least I oppose renaming to "interested in...". My reasons are threefold:

• First, I do not agree that reading necessarily implies interest (e.g. I read Guardian Unlimited, but have no real interest in the website itself).
• Second, the information conveyed by this category (knowledge of plot, access to the comic strip) is substantially different from that conveyed by an interest category (interest, irrespective of knowledge or access). For instance, if access to this strip was limited, I would likely support retention of the category.
• Third, "interested in Dykes to Watch Out For" could be interpreted in more than one way ... :P – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Unlike categories about what people "like", they either read it or they do, and therefore the inclusion criterion is straightforward. This particular strip is important and notable for a lot of other reasons. (I should know. I'm going to be covering it in a class next semester.) Connecting its readers to each other can facilitate collaboration in editing it and articles about their many shared interests. Doczilla 05:27, 1 November 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 deleted by

Category:RickK Fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete one entry, a userbox that will soon be at MFD, doesn't foster cooperation and just isn't needed. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, who isn't a fan of RickK? --Kbdank71 18:50, 30 October 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 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Civil Air Patrol - I'm not certain what should be done with this. Though it is not unlike the military cats, it is decidedly not military. Suggestions welcome. - jc37 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutral - jc37 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it alone by default? — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "The U.S. Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF)." (Civil Air Patrol) - This would seem to be more than just merely membership in an organisation. I'm looking to find out if this is a "profession", a skill-related cat, a hobby, part of the military, or what. - jc37 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a civilian auxiliary organization, like the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the police auxiliary here in Milwaukee: civilians trained to help out the parent organizations, not paid but covered by liability insurance when on site (the work can be dangerous), generally uniformed in a distinct way to indicate their quasi-official status. It's not a profession, but it's a heavier commitment than a hobby. --Orange Mike 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so if we were to create a more specific parent category for this (and potentially others shown at auxiliaries), what do you think would be a good defining word? Military reserve force? (Reserve force redirects there.) - jc37 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that if a new parent cat is created, it should also be able to accomodate a "Wikipedians in a

  Community Emergency Response Team subcat (which I don't think exists, but could). This would preclude a millitary reserve, but I'm not sure what else it could be. "Civilian assistance groups?" —ScouterSig 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. The category merely expresses an off-wiki organisational affiliation that provides no information about profession, interest, knowledge or skills. It is, in essence, a "reservist of Branch X of the military of Country Y"-type user category (this isn't a category for reservists, but there are similarities between the general purpose of a "civilian auxiliary" and that of a reserve force); I see no reason to encourage the proliferation of several hundred of such categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to admit, that's a very good point. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason to discourage them. Having now negated each others arguments, I suggest we try to find a principle: I suggest: user categories with more than 1 active member shall be permitted unless they are divisive or inflammatory." the all we need to do here is keep the naming consistent, and weed out the very few remaining problematic ones. In fact, that's the existing policy per WP:userboxes--the only thing required beyond the criteria for a userbox is that they be useful to other WPedians. (hence then need for more than a single member) Any other criterion is not supported by policy. If practice here has been otherwise, either it or the policy needs to be changed. DGG (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  DGG, there are several problems with that approach/principle. First, Wikipedia:Userboxes is a guideline and does not override policy. Nonetheless, it states: Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default. Consider how useful the category would be to other editors before adding it to your userbox. One or two editors claiming that a category is useful without actually explaining why is insufficient.

  Moreover, at least two policies apply to user category discussions:

  WP:OWN

  ; namely, (1) Wikipedia is not a MySpace equivalent and (2) user categories are not owned by their creators or members (they have no more or less claim to them than any other good-faith editor).

  If we also consider the principle that policy should generally reflect practice (which is a fairly good measure of extant consensus), then the unambiguous precedent of several hundred discussions over the past several months cannot be ignored.

  To get back to the topic, I can provide two reasons to discourage a proliferation of random categories: category clutter and

  WP:NOT (per above). I know that "category clutter" by itself is a weak reason to delete, but it's a valid one nonetheless: a free-for-all in the user category system would not only increase the costs (in terms of time and effort) of maintaining the system, but would also reduce navigability and thereby decrease the likelihood that such categories could be used for collaborative purposes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (

  my category alone, go delete yours... In other words, a double standard. - jc37 04:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per Black Falcon. No collaborative potential comes from this. ^
  ^{[omg plz]} 22:34, 3 November 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 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Boys & Girls Clubs of America - a single Wikipedian in a single association. - jc37 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if any article has needed collaboration it's that article. It's quite amazing considering how notable the organization actually is. I've left a notice on the sole member of that category's talk page so he can weigh in (in case the category is not in his watchlist). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Any collaborative potential seems to be limited to a single article and, thus, could just as easily be carried out on the article's talk page. If no consensus to delete, then rename to
  main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Delete, per all of the above. Dreamy ^§ 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The category is too old to still exist with only one member. Doczilla 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - this is a prime example of user categories which are relevant. Alumni of a given school are both good sources for information and checking, and people who should be watched for POV problems. These cats make both aspects easier to monitor. --Orange Mike 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See
  previous discussion. The main point brought up there, which I believe is still valid, is that these categories can help with collaboration on school-related articles. This is not just theoretical - they have actually been used for this purpose. --- RockMFR 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  So you see these categories as being less about identification and more about being "from" a location (a school, in this case)? - jc37 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, useful for collaboration on related articles. We do have articles on universities here. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - useful, harmless, seems like an easy decision. — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While we should typically not concern ourselves with performance, I think 672 categories are concerning, and wouldn't call them "harmless". See

  WP:CLS, for more information. - jc37 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, that's just a processing issue, not a storage issue. So the number of categories isn't important -- just the frequency of use. In terms of cost-benefit analysis, it doesn't matter how frequently the category is used unless the frequency affects the marginal utility of the category, and I don't see how it would in this case (at least not in the direction of more usage). So it's a valid reason for deletion, but I don't think it applies more in this case than any other, and overall I think it's pretty negligible. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - I would otherwise be inclined to keep, except for the recent history of deletion of all user categories based on identity, social networking, and life experience. Perhaps getting the frat boys and sorority sisters peeved will gain a broader interest in the jihad going on here, on this page.Michael J Swassing 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... delete the page so that the IfD can be overturned, a more representative group of editors might be aroused, precedent can be changed, and the category can hopefully be restored? Certainly one of the more peculiar !votes (and I don't really mean that in a negative way)! :O — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, exactly. I do not mean for my vote to be a disruptive edit. However, it should be noted that the "consensus" on this page involves a small number of deletionists who have already
      jumped the shark. If someone wanted to delete all user categories and be done with it, the only reason the regulars on this page would object is it would interfere with their hobby and passtime: similar to picking scabs off one by one.Michael J Swassing 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I think that last bit is a bit extreme, and I
        totally missed the jumping the shark reference, but I definitely agree that low, disproportionate representation in UCFD is an issue. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • While I understand that the user is not happy with the deletion of the Plant amnesty categories, I don't think that making
          WP:POINTy comments helps. A couple things: The "personal experience" categories are not being nominated for deletion (education, or skill, for example), self-identification ones are. While I won't speak for any of the other regular commenters on this page, I am not a deletionist. I've heard it said again, and again that there is low turnout on this page. There are several tools on my userpage. Try one and see how many different people actually comment here. For that matter, count the number of different Wikipedians who have commented just on this page currently. The problem, to paraphrase The Matrix, is choice. If people don't wish to comment, they don't have to. Notice that I personally have not commented in every discussion on this page either. Also, you may wish to refrain from using words such as "jihad", in order to prevent confusion, and possibly creating disruption from the mere use of the word. - jc37 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I am not un-happy about the deletion of the user category for wikipedian members of Plant Amnesty. I created it, I was the only member of it, I emailed information about it to other members of Plant Amnesty to try to get some help on all of the forestry and arboriculture related articles. None came. After a period of time a bot deleted the category because it had only one member for some period of time. I actually do agree that that is a pretty good procedure for handling categories that seemed like a good idea at the time, but never panned out.Michael J Swassing 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A related category might be Category:Wikipedians interested in environmentalism. And you may wish to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science. There are several WikiProjects which seem to concern plants Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants in particular. I hope this helps. - jc37 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I regret if my use of simile and metaphor are provocative. It is my intent to express surprise and contempt for what I have found going on here.Michael J Swassing 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What exactly is "going on here" that is worthy of contempt? Also, per the notice at the top of this page, I suggest we relocate this off-topic discussion (should you wish to continue it, of course) to the talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Never mind, I think I understand now to what you are referring. I think that the near-automatic keep/delete dichotomy that arises in these types of discussions is related more to the structure of the page, designed to efficiently handle a large quantity of nominations (analogous to a mass-production assembly line), rather than an attempt to do away with all user categories. However, I certainly see the appeal of your argument, that "discussion" should not be limited solely (or primarily) to deletion or retention; at present, such discussion is relegated to the talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (EC) I comment in most UCfD discussions and used to be an active nominator here; however, I am not a deletionist and I do not want to delete all user categories. The nominator of this category self-identifies as an inclusionist and has elsewhere stated that he has no desire to see all user categories deleted. I think you have either seriously misinterpreted or are seriously mischaracterising the nature of this discussion page, its participants, and their intents. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to "Interested in in x University" - There are many pages having to do with lots of universities, so a category is useful to group people interested on collaborating on articles related to the university. The current naming convention doesn't adequetely convey the category should be used for collaboration purposes, however. VegaDark (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree totally, if we could be sure that those in the cats were intending more than identification. (Referring to the "zodiac problem".) How about: "Delete, with no prejudice for creation of corresponding "by interest" categories". And clarify that all the single article/single-user ones shouldn't be recreated unless/until there is more interest/subject matter. - jc37 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not support renaming to "Interested in X University". To use myself as an example, I'm interested in the University of Georgia, but I don't know a thing about it (and you'll note I've never edited that article). I'd fit perfectly in a category titled "Wikipedians interested in University of Georgia" but I wouldn't be any help to collaboration. An alumni on the other hand should be able to point somebody in the right direction, at the very least. - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The example above is exactly the issue. If a person wants a userpage notice to show identification as an alumnus, that should be fine. But there is no need for a Wikipedian category. If someone wishes to create categories intended for collaboration, that would be fine too. But as shown in the scouting cats above, there are those who may not be alumni, but who may be interested in collaborating in these categories. So what then? We have two entirely duplicate category trees? 672 times 2 = a lot of categories that we really shouldn't need. And given the choice, let's delete the identification ones, since they exclude those interested who may not be alumni. - jc37 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as User:VegaDark, if they weren't interested, the wouldn't had bothered to put their selves in the category. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  They would if their only reason was to display their alma mater "Look at where I graduated!" among other reasons. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Very helpful in finding people to work with on university related articles. KnightLago 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Contrary to what some may think, these categories actually do benefit collaboration. On more than one occasion, I have used the alumni categories to find a Wikipedia related to a certain university or college in order to find a specific source or image. These are greatly beneficial to the creation of university related pages, and have nothing to do with Wikipedia being a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. These are for collaboration and would be a great loss if deleted. - auburnpilot talk 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all - No-brainer here. No harm done in allowing those who have graduated from the same university to contact each other for the purposes of collaboration.
  FCYTravis 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I do think these categories can be useful for collaboration. However I am deeply concerned about the idea that we can delete 672 categories in one relatively brief debate. Most of the people who use these categories are very unlikely to know the debate is going on. These categories have been built up slowly over several years. They should not be removed. --Bduke 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As a member of WikiProject Universities, I can testify that these are useful, I find them useful and have seen other people use them to collaborate on university-specific wiki projects. Danski14^(talk) 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you provide some example links from prior to this discussion? - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming per below; I can't decide on keep/delete. Weak delete and oppose renaming. Although it is virtually certain that many (maybe most) people use these categories as nothing more than userpage notices, I think they do have some collaborative value. Unlike high schools, there are usually multiple articles associated with any given post-secondary institution, so the potential for collaboration is not limited to one or two articles only. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen the collaboration value espoused. Can any of the supporters provide some examples of this happening? I don't doubt that it's possible, but I haven't seen any evidence that it is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally don't know, as I've never tried to use these specific categories ... I'm mostly trying to theorise on the basis of extant information (which is all just a fancy way of stating that I'm speculating). ;) There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of editors using these categories have no interest whatsoever in collaborating on the topic; for them, this is nothing more than userpage notice. The only question (for me) is whether it's better to make do with this set of identification categories or to start over with more collaboration-oriented categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Switched from 'keep' per Lurker's point regarding

  WP:NOR). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I can't say I agree that being an alumni of a university poses a conflict of interest. Certainly, we would hope the administration (read dean, president, board, etc) would respect the potential for a conflict of interest, but I don't believe merely attending a school should forbid a user from participating in the development of that school's article. Similarly, I would expect the

  catholics. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  ... Good point. Given my obvious ambivalence regarding this category tree (I've already changed from 'keep' to 'weak keep' to 'weak delete'), I'll just stick with what I'm sure of: namely, that I oppose renaming the categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have posted this message on the WP pages for
  this page right here. This is a chance to speak your mind about how education can/does/does not affect Wikipedia work." I am not trying to canvass a vote one way or another. Yes, I realize that both groups will most likely want to keep the cats, but I'm not sure who to notify who would 'obviously' be voting against. The Deltionist Cabal keeps hidden pretty well :) —ScouterSig 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The problem with that "note" is that this nom has nothing to do with their education. It has to do with identifying as alumni. (A "badge" as opposed to knowledge.) If you want examples of education, look under the other subcats of Wikipedians by education (such as Wikipedians by degree). - jc37 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all and do not rename/redefine. These categories are useful for finding people who can help improve the articles. Timrollpickering 10:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and oppose rename: these categories are considerably more useful than the degree categories. Kestenbaum 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? The degree categories at least suggest knowledge in a topic of study... - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I prefer not to be called a frat boy. So long as a category provides relevant information it should not be deleted. Airpear 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "As long as a category provides relevant information, it should not be deleted" - I'll presume that you meant Wikipedian categories, considering the venue. - But seriously, consider that as a criterion for inclusion for a moment. What is "relevant information"? Do you think that whether someone lists as female, a parent, a

  baby boomer, 300 pounds, and drives a car is "relevant"? There are many related articles to each of those, yet they've been deleted in the past. Why? Because there is no reason to presume that people who fall under a certain demographic may be interested in editing articles related to that demographoc. So then we just have useless sprawling categories, that essentially exist for "feel-good" reasons. People could get the same feeling from making that statement on their userpage. They don't need a category for it. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep all and do not rename: I also agree that these categories are useful, at least as much as any other category for Wikipedians. A user's university affiliation has come up in the past during AfD debates when one editor may have
  WikiProject Universities for both creating new university-specific wikiprojects and gathering contributors for article improvement drives. —Noetic Sage 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Keep all and do not rename/redefine per User:xDanielx. Seriously, this anti Wikipedian catetgorisation drive has to have limits. I am happy to cut out useless and redundant categories where appropriate, but this is a bridge too far. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is this a "bridge too far"? Because you've deemed that this one has value? "Useless and redundant" is totally in the eye of the beholder. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No doubt this makes me someone who !votes delete for fun, and a shark-jumper to boot, but I oppose the use of Wikipedia as a social networking site. Listing Wikipedians by school does not foster collaboration, unless you think that having Wikipedians who attend a school as the main contributors to a school's article is a good idea. which it often isn't. Lurker (said · done) 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am really curious to hear statistics on how often categories like these actually are used for collaboration. Not "are useful", or "can be used for collaboration", or are "possibly" anything; I want to hear from people who either contacted or were contacted because of a user category, and went ahead with someone else and pooled their knowledge to edit an article. I have a strong suspicion that a very high percentage of people in these categories are in them for no other reason than to tell the world, "Look at me, I went to ABC University, or belong to XYZ, or are interested in whatever, or are a dolphin". --Kbdank71 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There is no indication that these are used for abuse or lobbying. People who want to spam university articles will get there perfectly well even without them. There are some social elements to Wikipedia. One's school(s) are one of the things a great many people talk a little about on their user talk pages now and then, but I havent seen anyone overdoing it & if they do we have ways to handle it. Given the ubiquity of college-oriented social web sites I doubt anyone would bother using WP for this purpose. Even I who do not list user categories am interested in knowing about other people here from my own universities; I don't like to use userboxes, but I might as an exception list myself in the 3 or 4 appropriate places here--I never thought about doing till now, but I see the virtues of it--it's suitably low key as compared to boxes. Something to be encouraged. DGG (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How about just type some text on your userpage. You don't need a userbox or a category to share such information. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep All per Orange Mike and Bduke above. Wl219 06:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above plus: fosters collaboration, is about the only way left that a person can verifiably cat about a qualification as the institutions have records. The 13 year old professor syndrome. My personal opinion is the category deleters are expending effort better directed elsewhere in Wikipedia. I believe no barnstars or other awards should be given for category deletion as it is driving the entire effort to debase Wikipedia contributors. If these go, the language categories are next. Maybe work on[these] subcats before the academic ones? Mikebar 06:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that was a classic example of suggesting that "If you get yours, I want mine". Which has absolutely nothing to do with the nomination. And as I've mentioned elsewhere seems to be merely a statement of

  ownership. Incidentally, concerning: "is about the only way left that a person can verifiably cat about a qualification as the institutions have records." - you can post a notice on your userpage about such information, and don't need a category for it. A category is a grouping. The "bottom-of-the-page" listing is incidental, and if that's what a category is being used for, the category should be deleted. Also, quite a few more categories once were at the bottom of the page you listed, but when deleted, they were removed from the related userboxes, and I was thus no longer categorised. All of the ones left on that page are merely from userboxes. Also, this nomination is not about all Wikipedian categories, merely the ones which are being used as identification, and not collaboration. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep with Rename Suggestion I think renaming them would be helpful, but as above "interested in" is not sufficient. However, maybe "employees, alumni, and current students of"? The current students and employees would probably have even more info about the university than the alumni, other than historical information which might be more the alumni expertise. Felisse 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And a store manager (or regional manager, for that matter) of a McDonald's would likely have different information about the corporation than the fry cook. So we should have Category:Wikipedian fry cooks? - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as useful colaboration opportunities, POV notices, and general solidarity within Wikipedia (I've never seen a Michigan State user vandalize an Ohio State user page).—ScouterSig 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll ask again. To those who want to keep because they are "useful colaboration opportunities", have you either contacted someone or were contacted because of a user category, and went ahead with someone else and pooled their knowledge to edit an article? I hear alot about "it's great for collaboration", but not much of "I've collaborated with someone because of this category". --Kbdank71 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The answer is yes, though I don't understand why it really matters. I include myself in Category:Wikipedian instrument-rated pilots, and although I've never been contacted because I am in the category, I know if somebody were to contact me with a instrument flight questions, I would have the resources to answer that question. By the same token, students/former students of universities frequently have access to sources/databases/materials that those who have no affiliation do not. Because I'm in the category Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University, if somebody wished to gain access to a source or simply had a question related to the university, I know I could either help them myself, or direct them to somebody who could. Simply because nobody has asked me, doesn't mean they won't. It also doesn't mean the category isn't useful. - auburnpilot talk 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  While I realise that kbdank71 asked this in general about "User categories", This nom is specifically about the alma mater categories. So I'd like to ask a similar question: "To those who want to keep because they are "useful colaboration opportunities", have you either contacted someone or were contacted because of an alma mater user category, and went ahead with someone else and pooled their knowledge to edit an article? I'd also appreciate links from prior to this discussion showing it. - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I was asking it for the alma mater categories specifically, but now that it's mentioned, why would I pick a random person in

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities and ask one question that all people will see and can help with? Can any of these be used for collaboration? Sure, but why would you when there are better, more effecient avenues to take? --Kbdank71 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The debate between user cats and WikiProjects is the same as the debate between categories and lists, categories and navigational templates, and any other "category vs something else" debate. It all depends on how you use Wikipedia. Categories have less detail, but are easier to manage. WikiProjects/navigational templates/lists can have more detail, but are more difficult to manage (and in the case of WikiProjects, have more bureaucracy). Identification categories and WikiProject member cats/lists can and should co-exist. --- RockMFR 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories may be easier to manage, and that causes a problem when it comes to collaboration (the main keep reason). Joe "I need help with Auburn University" Editor isn't going to start randomly asking people for help because they are in an easy to get into category. It's going to take more effort to do that, and most likely a waste of his time. Joe Editor doesn't care that a wikiproject is harder to manage or has more bureaucracy. He'll care that he can ask one question and get an answer, instead of asking many and possibly getting none. --Kbdank71 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not possibly disagree more with your view on these categories. If I have a question about Auburn University, never would I go ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, (a large group) if I know I can find one editor from a specific university's category. In my experience, Joe Editor cares very much if a WikiProject is harder and more bureaucratic. Why the hell would I deal with an overly bureaucratic group of semi-related editors, when I can go directly to an editor associated with the university I'm needing information on? Further, I find Category:Wikipedians by alma mater much more useful than Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater, a list that attempts to accomplish the same. MfD that list, and you'll have my support. A category does the job better. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Easier to manage..." - Huh? Maybe if you own a bot. Perhaps it's subjective, but I've always found lists to be easier to manage than categories, and clearer too. (See also the current #3 at

  Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Disadvantages of categories - "Difficult to maintain".) - jc37 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes is an editing guideline referring to generally accepted standards for the namespace, not userspace. A massive list of editors would be much more difficult to maintain, as a quick look at Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater will show. - auburnpilot talk 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Here's the link:

  WP:CLS - Please feel free to read it over again. It compares the benefits and liabilities of categories, lists, and navboxes. And no matter what is placed in a category, it still has certain limiations, and strengths. Same with lists, and so on. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, I have for one of my alma maters. Others probably have but this is such a sparcely attended page on Wikipedia that getting a large sample is not practical. Mikebar 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  For "such a Sparcely attended page", this discussion is larger than many listed on other XfD pages... - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I now am convinced

  Wikipedia is not a democracy given what transpires here. Mikebar 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong keep per much of the above. I note in particular the comment that there is a social aspect to Wikipedia, and while I know as well as everyone else that
  Wikipedia is not a social network, that social aspect is part of what makes this project appealing. It's a collaborative effort to write a free encyclopedia, and if these user categories aid in that in any way, they strike me as being worth keeping. I know I've used the user cat from my own alma mater to track down others for input on that particular article; I imagine I'm not the only one. Esrever 02:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Would you happen to have a link to that example? - jc37 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you actually be serious? Who would lie about that, and why would it be worth anyone's time for Esrever to provide a link? Nik-renshaw 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Because we're all Wikipedians here, and there is nothing wrong with asking for a link in an XfD discussion. It has nothing to do with lying (or truth), it has to do with verifiability. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the compelling arguments above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I've found collaboration on articles usually starts with a note on my Talk Page such as I see that you've contributed a lot to such and such an article, etc. I don't understand the comment made above about frat boys or sorority girls. I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. clariosophic 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification I believe the theory (whether sincerely intended or not) was that these two classes of desultory participants in the Wikipedia project might be roused from torpor by the threat that their beloved alma mater's alum category is in danger of deletion, and maybe get more active in the project as a whole? --Orange Mike 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; rehashing the userbox wars would be a waste of time. Humans are social; 'nuff said. SparsityProblem 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, this has nothing to do with the userboxes. This is only about the categories. I wonder how many other commenters in this discussion are under the same misunderstanding. - jc37 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If the above comment is confusing deletion of the category for deletion of the userbox, or assuming that one entails the other, then yes, that'd be a "misunderstanding". If it's commenting on the similarity of pointlessness of the whole endeavour, the needless effort expended, and angst caused, then that's an "insight". Alai 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In my opinion, 672 is a bit much, but it is harmless, and I could see this being used for collaboration. One possible scenario: Someone needs information on a particular part of a university, and a person who went there would be able to find the information easier, for various reasons. Looking through a couple of subcats would make that an easy job. To summarize: Harmless, and could help with collaboration.
  (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - in line with other comments regarding collaboration. See also the WikiProject Universities, for whom lists of alumni may be useful for the purposes of collaboration on certain articles. Coldmachine^Talk 16:15, 6 November 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 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Chinese instrument players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This intermediary categorisation layer seems unnecessary (i.e.

overcategorisation) since Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument

is not so large as to require subcategorisation. Upmerging is not required since all of the subcategories already appear in the parent category.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not sure if anyone uses these cats at all.
  ^T/C 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep - "First they came for the Chinese instrument players, but I did nothing, because I wasn't a Chinese instrument player ..."Michael J Swassing 04:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godwin's law, anyone? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were coming for the Chinese instrument players, you would have a good argument. But I'm thinking it doesn't have the same ring when it ends "...but I did nothing, because I wasn't a Chinese instrument player category." --Kbdank71 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All subcategories should be upmerged. This form of subcategorization is not useful at all, we get no benefit from distinguishing people who play Chinese instruments from any other instruments. If allowed could set precedent for an instrument category for each of all the 270+ countries. VegaDark (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you want to collaborate with someone because you play the Guqin, then I suggest you start by editing Guqin. --Kbdank71 17:32, 30 October 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 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Wikipedians Considering the fact that it is not uncommon for Wikipedians to abandon one account to edit with another, the right to vanish or the right to leave, as well as GoodBye, this category are just an arbitrary list of usernames. And "whatlinkshere" will tell you who has the associated template applied to their userpage. - jc37 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is not really a category of former Wikipedians; it's just a category of editors who happen to use one of two or three particular templates. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of accounts that edited for a short while and subsequently lapsed into inactivity. Besides, what
  collaborative purpose could this category have? All of the people in it are no longer here to collaborate on articles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per JC and Black Falcon. —ScouterSig 14:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Kbdank71 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... no real collaborative purpose behind this. Also, user page notices oft suffice for this.
  SkierRMH 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete there's Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians for this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we need to have something to remember them by.
  ^T/C 04:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We have their user pages. Don't need a category. --Kbdank71 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have the category quite specifically to find the user pages. DGG (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you need to find them? --Kbdank71 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If someone wants to declare that they have chosen to stop editing on Wikipedia, this tells us something that an unused username does not because the unused username might simply mean that person has decided to stop editing under that name and started a new one. Categorization is useful in case anyone ever found it useful to contact former Wikipedians (via e-mail since they supposedly have stopped checking their talk pages) regarding their experiences. Doczilla 05:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category would only be useful in that respect if one wanted to contact a large group of former Wikipedians, rather than a specific user (although, it could also be done via the "whatlinkshere" of the userboxes that populate these categories ... and I'm not certain that the former editors would appreciate being contacted – but that's another issue). Is that what you had in mind? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:42, 1 November 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 deleted. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

Category:Wikipedians who are partially active

These categories were deleted after

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Since this was directed here via DRV and no one has commented, I am going to let this sit here for 5 additional days before decision. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find "not currently active" useful. The history of participation in WP is important, and for newcomers, it is useful for orientation to see even such an approximate and partial grouping. This is true to a lesser degree for "partial"but if people find their callingthemselves significant, then perhaps it is.DGG (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per my reasons under "Former Wikipedians" above. - jc37 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per my comment at #Category:Former Wikipedians. I can see why someone would want to know whether a particular editor is currently inactive or partially active. However, the userpage notice more than suffices for that (the user's contributions history is another tool). The category is little more than an add-on to a userbox. Incidentally, what does it mean to have a category of "partially active" editors? The phrase means different things to different people. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per others. --Kbdank71 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Concur with jc37... And these are just simply too vague; I guess an individual putting themselves into one of these would be a valid self-evaluation, but wouldn't the userpage notices would suffice. (and as a ;)... how about stirring the pot and putting anyone with less than
  SkierRMH 22:25, 29 October 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 no decision requested. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came to this page to ask for assistance, as I have screwed something up in creating the user category: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington State University. However, upon review of the previous discussions, it looks like the trend is to remove user categories that serve no collaborative purpose. I do not see how alma mater has greater usefulness then the other user categories which have been previously deleted.Michael J Swassing 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While there is indeed a trend to remove user categories that lack a collaborative purpose, a previous discussion for 'alma mater' user categories for post-secondary institutions resulted in a 'keep' outcome (the categories have also been nominated above). You can, of course, still request deletion of this particular category since you are its creator and sole member. Incidentally, what seems to be wrong with how you created the category? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your interest, Black Falcon. I have no particular interest in deleting this one category, or any other, but I have become increasingly aware of the disappearance of user categories that I found useful in identifying people who may have an interest in a particular topic, or have a useful life experience. I appear to be the only member of this particular user category, which does not trouble me as others may join later. That same strategy has not worked for long with user categories not alma mater related.

  I found this page because I was looking for help with the category, and appreciate your offer of assistance. However, looking over the page I think a casual observer would agree this is not so much "Categories for discussion" as it is "Categories to be voted off the island."

  The specific problem is a looping link. I do not know the correct computer term, but the category is a sub category of itself. I have know idea how I did that, and have tried to undo it. You got any ideas on that?Michael J Swassing 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you truly do not wish to see this category deleted, then perhaps you should withdraw the nomination. So far, you and I are the only participants in the discussion, and it seems that neither one of us actually wants deletion in this case.

  While many self-identification categories have been deleted (with the affiliations expressed ranging from political ideology to something as trivial as the colour of the user's iPod), I think only a few could be classified as 'useful' beyond a mere userpage notice. Indeed, most discussions on this page that end in a 'delete' outcome are characterised by a distinct lack of any explanation for why the nominated category is useful.

  As for the looping link, this edit should take care of it; it limits the userbox to categorising only pages in the user

  namespace. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I appreciate your assistance in this matter. The interaction that I have had with you here is precisely what I had hoped for when I entered the page titled "User categories for discussion." That being a collaborative discussion about a difficulty involving a user category. I was completely unaware that the assumption of entering a category into discussion would place it into consideration for an up or down vote.

  As I have tried to make clear, I am disturbed at what I have found here. And it explains the gradual disappearance of user categories that I have found useful in the past.Michael J Swassing 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was happy to help. As for the CFD process, it's not a vote per se, but it is an evaluation of whether a category should be retained, merged, renamed, or deleted. I suppose that this structure is a result of the fact that user categories were formerly discussed at

  Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, which has since been renamed. Anyway, since none of those four listed outcomes is the goal in this case, do you mind if I close this discussion? Neither of us favours deletion and, unless I've missed something, there seems little reason to leave the nomination open for the full 5 days. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I'm fine with closing this discussion. This sub-cat is now part of the discussion regarding the category wikipedians by alma matter, and I won't make any changes with this sub-cat it until that discussion closes.Michael J Swassing 19:08, 1 November 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 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians studying in an ESF school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats and several subsequent supporting precedents. The ESF operates about 20 schools in Hong Kong, all of them below the post-secondary level. Thus, this is a (single-user) category for Wikipedians who attend a primary or secondary school, or possibly a kindergarten. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. —ScouterSig 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedents. Doczilla 05:32, 1 November 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 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously deleted after an under-attended debate. Consensus at

Chick Bowen 02:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Neutral per nom. :) --WaltCip 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listing Wikipedians by hobby does not help build an encyclopaedia. Lurker (said · done) 14:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Lurker said listing wikipedians by hobby is not encyclopedia building. Also considering that in its 22 month history not one person has been a "member" of this category I say deletion would be a right decision. TonyBallioni 12:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment its a bit different than just a hobby. I don't want to repeat everything that was said in the same discussion just a few months earlier. I provided a link to the discussion in my vote further below. I hope this might makes you reconsider. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral just because. (Well, okay, really I just want to see how my new signature looks.) — xDanielx ^T/_C 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When not even its creator is a member, I think it's safe to delete a user category. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment OTOH, it's possible that this category was cleaned out after the previous delete. In that case, disregard my previous "vote". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I saw no point in repopulating it before this debate was concluded. Sorry, should have pointed that out in the nomination.

  Chick Bowen 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per Lurker. --Kbdank71 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Demoscener_Wikipedians --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

comment I also added the reference to the previous discussion at Category_talk:Demoscener_Wikipedians --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:31, 3 November 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 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NarniaWebbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete serves no collaborative purpose, is less defining than numerous other user cats already deleted and it only has one person. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Orphaned category.--WaltCip 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphaned.
  SkierRMH 04:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a category that
  this precedent, which resulted in the deletion of several similar categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, especially Black Falcon. GlassCobra 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted as orpthaned.
  ^T/C 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete orphan. Doczilla 05:35, 1 November 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NAUI divers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who scuba dive, or at least Rename to Category:Wikipedian National Association of Underwater Instructors divers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This seems reminiscent of the pilots' catgories recently. "The National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) is a United States-based SCUBA diver training organization concerned with promoting dive safety through education." - So how about: Category:Wikipedian SCUBA instructors, or something similar? - jc37 09:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, my suggestion of Category:Wikipedian SCUBA instructors, is comparable to Category:Wikipedian flight instructors. A general use category would be better than one targeting a specific organisation. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not foster collaboration. There is no need for a categories describing one's hobbies or job. A userbox or notice on talk page is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Lurker (said · done) 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There are sure to be dozens or hundreds of scuba diving training organisations across the world; although NAUI may be a prominent one in the USA, I do not think it merits a separate category, especially when it contains only a single user. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. NOTE: the up-category says it is only for certified divers, which would exclude beginners. That sets up a scene for two user cats. —ScouterSig 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Keep This is a relatively new category. Limited number of users is not an argument for delete/merge when time should be considered. This category is part of a plan to collect more users for
  WikiProject SCUBA. The category was created to collect expertise on a specific topic. The end goal is finding differences/discrepancies in diver training methods across diver organizations. While I agree that categories should not be made with the goal of "social networking," no category should be deleted/merged when it serves the purpose of gathering expertise and fostering collaboration. - Gr0ff 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per Prove It and Gr0ff. Provides pool of expertise, assuming more people join this new category. - 199.67.140.242 19:34, 29 October 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 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mystic Wikipedians - See Mysticism - "The state of oneness has many names depending on the mystical system: Illumination, Union (Christianity), Irfan (Islam), Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism), Samadhi (Hinduism), to name a few." -This is inclusive of nearly everyone who identifies with a religion. This is waaaay too broadly inclusive. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all religions have an inherent mystical element. Many religions focus on the worship of or tribute to some external entity. One can practice almost any religion either with or without mystical consideration. This category focuses on the concept of mysticism itself, rather than on any particular practice. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As already noted, the category's scope is much too broad (e.g. see Mysticism#Mystical traditions); this lack of specificity foils any attempt to try to infer a relationship between identification and knowledge or interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename as "Wikipedians interested in Mysticism". There are religious systems which incorporate mysticism, but mysticism still stands on its own as an ideology. Also, such mystic religions have mysticism as a common point of belief, and not just in name. This is especially useful for those who which to contribute to articles about a variety of mystical traditions and mysticism in general, rather than focusing on only one or a few traditions. I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as mystic and those who are interested in mysticism without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not foster collaboration. Lurker (said · done) 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too wide of a scope to be useful for collaboration purposes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per Bigwyrm. Identification with likely indicates knowledge of. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simply too broad. Renaming to "Wikipedians interested in Mysticism" still begs the question, which type of mysticism? all? would still be inclusive to anyone who id's with a religion.
  SkierRMH 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wouldn't there be subcategories (requiring a metacategory)? bd2412 T 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the vagueness associated with affiliating as a 'mystic', we could not accurately implement this type of subcategorisation. I think it would be better to allow the "interested in..." categories to be created and populated naturally (i.e. on the basis of self-identification, rather than our interpretation of it). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vaguely named, excessively broad category. Doczilla 05:36, 1 November 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 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Realist Wikipedians - See Realism <-- Click on the link, and see how really broad and unmanageable this category is. It even covers separate disciplines, such as art, law, philosophy, physics, international relations, literature, and more. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Realism is not a philosophy or an ideology; it is the name of several dozen related and unrelated artistic, literary, philosophical, and political theories, movements, and worldviews. This category simply
  cannot foster encyclopedic collaboration because it does not express a single affiliation. The label "realist" is so broad that it is impossible to know specifically what information this category is supposed to convey; therefore, it conveys to useful information. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in
  Political realism", as that seems to be the intent. See the article for details. Also, reparent under Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, as suggested by Black Falcon in the old discussion for Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How did you come to that conclusion? As I look over the single member's Userpage (yes, only one member of the category, its creator), I see more of an interest in law than politics, though since he placed it in the philosophy category, he could mean it philosophically as well. Note that he also created (and is the only user) of Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians, as well. In any case, in looking over his userpage, I don't think he created the categories for collaboration so much as identification. And as we've done in the past in a few cases of single-user categories, they can remain as redlinks on his userpage. (See User:Kbdank71 for another example of a redlinked category notice.) - jc37 08:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close correlation between political realism (which is also apparently referred to as just "realism") and structural realism (or neorealism), and the fact that, as you pointed out, the same user started both of those user categories tend to support my conclusion that the intended "realism" in this category is political realism. If you really want to know with certainty what he intended, you could always ask him. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey now, how'd I get pulled into this? My red-linked cat was never meant to be a real category, just humor. You make a good point, however. If you are the only person in the category, you don't actually need the category to exist in order to self-identify. There is certainly no collaboration going on. I also agree with Black Falcon's assessment of the situation, and think it should be deleted. --Kbdank71 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too wide of a scope to be useful for collaboration purposes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too braod to be of any use at all, even if cats for philosophical and political movements were a good idea- past discussions show consensus they are not. Lurker (said · done) 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad in scope to be useful.
  SkierRMH 04:18, 27 October 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 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and precedent. Lurker (said · done) 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in neorealism" or "...structural realism". The broader category will include both those users who identify as neorealist and those who are interested in the subject without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A broader "interested in..." category should not include those who merely identify as neorealist. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & precedent... renaming with either 'neorelism' or 'structural realism' still refers back to political ideologies.
  SkierRMH 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in neorealism and recategorise into Category:Wikipedians interested in political science. I would be equally satisfied with both options ... unlike affiliations like feminist, Marxist, realist, theist, or atheist, "structural realism" is rather narrow in scope. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 31 October 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 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bright Wikipedians - recently turned into a redirect to:

Category:Wikipedian Brights - Brights movement

"The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view." - Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown

here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - as nominator. Oppose renaming to "interested in -ism", as nowhere near the category's intent. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the re-direct only but not Category:Wikipedian Brights. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement or possibly Category:Wikipedians interested in Brights, though I prefer the former. This category may have a limited scope, but it still has value for collaboration. Also, the fact that "Brights movement" and "New age movement" both have the word "movement" in them does not imply a connection. Compare "bowel movement" and "orchestral movement". I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as Bright and those who are interested in Brights without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that there was an adjective (two actually) before "movement". Also, as I look even more closely over
    here). See also Template:Irreligion. But the main point for me is this: "The brights movement has been formed as an Internet constituency of individuals. Its hub is the The Brights' Net web site.[1], but each individual has autonomy to speak for him/herself. The Brights' Net's tagline is now "Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview"." - If you click on this link they define themselves as: "The noun form of the term bright refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview." - The article has no category of itself, simply because it's naturalism. Though I doubt that those in the category would agree with merging/renaming to "Wikipedians interested in naturalism". The category is intended to show identification with the internet meme of the Brights movement. It's not intended for collaboration (indeed there is only a single article). - jc37 07:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The FSM and IPU are, of course, parody "social movements". The Brights movement is not. I beilieve you are wrong about this, and in this case your POV about the utility or inutility of an "irreligion" category as opposed to a "religion" category is not appropriate. The category HERE, however, Category:Bright Wikipedians, is up for deletion and is a redirect. That category could be deleted as it is merely a re-direct. 119 Wikipedians identify as Bright. 5 or so identify as Methodists. My stars, JC37. Have you nothing better to do? -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bigwyrm, the "interested in" category re-name isn't really all that useful. One can be interested in all sorts of things. One can be interested in and hostile to a topic, for instance. -- Evertype·✆ 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respectfully request that you comment on the content (in this case the specific category up for discussion), and not on other editors. That aside, both the category redirect and the category are tagged and nominated. Also, this isn't about numbers of members. There have been much larger categories deleted/renamed/merged. As stated previously, just because someone may choose to use a userbox, doesn't mean that the userbox needs a category to "assist" in identification. And they can add "This user is a Bright" or whatever, just as easily to their userpage as adding a category. A userpage notice is enough for that. This is obviuosly not intended for collaboration. - jc37 08:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evertype, I think that having editors with a variety of viewpoints in a category is actually a benefit to the "Wikipedians interested in <foo>" renames. Making the name imply an interest rather than explicitly stating an opinion makes the category a neutral ground, and more useful for collaboration. It would also reduce the concern that people would use categories for biasing a discussion, because not everybody in an interest-based category will support any particular idea. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I endorse Bigwyrm's view of more-inclusive categories, for the reasons he stated, and also as a means of reducing the extensive overcategorization that currently exists in the user categorization system. Horologium t-c 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Delete the redirect. Just to clarify, I only want the active category kept. The redirect can go. In particular, I remember reading somewhere that category redirects are considered harmful under the current version of MediaWiki. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP of category. JC37's assertion, "This is obviously not intended for collaboration" is nothing more than his assertion. Category:Wikipedian Brights should be kept. Category:Bright Wikipedians could be deleted. Also I do not favour re-naming as "interested in" is too ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 08:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's solely my "assertion", please show some examples of what would be collaborated on. - jc37 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assertion is a negative proposition. Frankly I have better things to do this morning that argue with you on your witch-hunt. Clearly you want to sweep the Wikipedia clean of categories you dislike, despite the fact that they do no harm whatsoever. All you have done is gone to Category:Wikipedians_by_philosophy and proposed everything for deletion. It is difficult to see your activity as anything but bad-faith POV on your part. And don't lecture me about going off-topic of this particular CfD. I sincerely hope you fail in your efforts. -- Evertype·✆ 08:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the acceptable user category types is the "category for basic demographic information". I feel it's not controversial to state that many people would include a person's religion, as this gives significant information about how someone was raised, defines their POV on a range of topics, and allows like minded Wikipedians to identify each other. I am not religious, but I don't find that to be a satisfactory definition of my world view (this gets to the heart of why I find Bright to be a worthwhile label in general). Identifying myself as a Bright is useful for the same reasons: I am giving information about how I was raised, defining my POV on topics related to the supernatural (including all religions), and allowing other users to find a like minded Wikipedian for tasks such as maintaining objectivity in articles pertaining to supernatural beliefs (an important point given the ubiquitous nature of unquestioned religious belief in many, if not most societies).--DJIndica 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, recent consensus seems to be that categories that are just for "basic demographic infomation" aren't enough to justify a Wikipedian category. Collaboration of some type seems to be the defining factor. So "by location", because it shows the possibility to provide "free" images, or "by language", to help with translation, or "by interest" for collaborating on related articles. The demographic information categories, such as by gender, marital status, lifestyle, birth year, generation, etc have all been deleted. - jc37 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, when do you plan to nominate Category:Christian Wikipedians for deletion? — DIEGO ^talk 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is an
              WP:ALLORNOTHING comment. But I'll try to answer anyway. It's been argued that even though they list as identification categories, the religion categories are being used as "by interest" categories. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but that has been the arguement. And there are quite a few articles directly related to each religion for collaboration. That isn't true about Brights movement. - jc37 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • I believe DJIndica's arguments clarify what kind of articles would directly benefit from collaboration between Brights. And I too believe that not nominating Category:Christian Wikipedians for deletion makes an excellent case for not nominating Category:Wikipedian Brights for deletion either. Dan Pelleg 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • One of the reasons that Category:Christian Wikipedians was not nominated in this batch of nominations is because all of these nominations were directed towards Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, not Category:Wikipedians by religion. Since Category:Bright Wikipedians is a subcat of the philosophy AND the religion parent cats, it has been affected by twice as many discussions. (It was also a target when all of the religion cats were discussed in June and July.) Since Category:Christian Wikipedians (which seems to be a favorite target of the Brights supporters for some reason) is only categorized under Category:Wikipedians by religion, it would not be included in a discussion regarding Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. Do you see why overcategorization is a bad thing? FWIW, when the category was created in January 2006, it was a member of three parent categories, one of which (Category:Irreligious Wikipedians) was deleted in UCFD in June. (That discussion was only about the category itself, not the child cats within it.) Horologium t-c 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd also like to second this user's comments when the discussion was about religious categories. I believe the same arguments hold true here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible uses for collaboration:
      1. Creating the aforementioned Category:Brights movement.
      2. Creating the article
         Paul Geisert (which currently redirects to Brights movement
         ).
      3. Collaborating on the article Mynga Futrell.
      4. Collaborating on other irreligion articles in order to provide balance.
      5. Collaborating on other religion articles in order to provide balance.
      6. Creating a {{Brights movement}} template.
      7. Collaboration on the article naturalistic.
      8. Collaboration on any of the Brights listed in the article (including Richard Dawkins).
      9. Creating a
         List of atheists
         .
      10. (Obvious one) Collaborating on the Brights movement article itself.
    • As with any article/category/template on Wikipedia the reasons for deletion need to at least meet or exceed the reasons for keeping. Collaboration is a good reason to keep. This user category is not overly broad (which is the only reason I see for its nomination) and it is not divisive. The only other argument I can think of for deletion is to keep down the "noise" in Wikipedia. I believe the possibilities for collaboration out-weigh the possibility of it introducing noise. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Kepp. "Broad cultural movement"? Don't you think that's a bit much? No renaming either. Honestly, these types of nominations are a waste of time and do not benifit the encyclopedia. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this is kepped, we need to create Category:Dim wikipedians. This is a category for self-identification "This is a listing of Wikipedia users who self-label as brights". Not used for collaboration. --Kbdank71 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per New Age Wikipedians discussion. Lurker (said · done) 15:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and (possibly) rename. The reasoning behind the nomination is flawed. The brights movement is not comparible to the
  New age movement. New age consists of a large group of vague, loosely associated philosophies and practices, has no membership criteria (other than self-identification), and cannot be characterized as a singular ideology. On the other hand, the brights movement has a singular purpose, is largely centralized (as Brights' Net, with actual membership rolls, etc.), and has a unifying mission. If the New age precedent is the only argument for deletion, it simply does not hold up. — DIEGO ^talk 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How about: "This is a category for self-identification This is a listing of Wikipedia users who self-label as brights. Not used for collaboration." ? Didn't mention New age at all. --Kbdank71 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Show me some evidence that it is not now, or could not be used for collaboration in the future. "Not used for collaboration" is an unfounded value judgement that has no place in a deletion discussion. I don't personally identify as a Bright, but I agree that this seems like somewhat of a witchhunt. If "Christian Wikipedians" is considered a useful category, then the same reasoning would apply to any other self-identified user category related to religious ideology. I personally think that user categories are particularly helpful with more obscure ideologies. You can't throw a brick without hitting a Christian, but it could be somewhat more difficult to find a Bright, Transhumanist, Bayesian, etc. to collaborate with if not for the user categories. — DIEGO ^talk 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not now: This is a listing of Wikipedia users who self-label as brights. Self-label, not collaborate. "Or could not in the future"? That is no reason to keep. If it were, I could create
        Bazouki. Or create any category because someone, some time, might create an article that would fit in it. If you want to collaborate, wikiprojects work better. --Kbdank71 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • The way I would consider to use a category like this is when for example I need to
          summarize the views of Alvin Plantinga, it could be useful to ask a Christian Wikipedian to check that I've been fair. I don't see, how the Bright category isn't exactly as useful when someone would need help checking that they have represented Dawkins et al appropriately. Could you instead of ridiculing us, explain why this category is different from the religious ones. --Merzul 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I didn't say it should be deleted because it was the same as religious categories. --Kbdank71 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What? — DIEGO ^talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • explain why this category is different from the religious ones. That's what I was responding to. --Kbdank71 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nobody has said that you favored deletion becasue it was the "same as religious categories". That has been offered as an argument to keep. Also, how does the fact that it is a category of users who self-label as Brights indicate that it is not used for collaboration? And by the way, if there is an actual, notable group that "delight in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse", and this group is large, geographically diverse, and is well-documented in reliable sources (like the brights movement), I would have no problem with that category. The point is, Christian Wikipedians and Bright Wikipedians are categories of users who self identify according to religious ideology. So why is Brights being targeted according to the self-identification/no collaboration rationale (and don't forget that the reason stated above; too much like "new age")? — DIEGO ^talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "geographically diverse" - As an internet site, it's international in scope. As an article, it's singular in scope. Note also that non-reference-based Wikipedians by website categories have also been deleted recently. So there's another precedent to delete a social community. - jc37 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (edit conflict with Diego, somewhat similar) Please don't read too much into this, I couldn't care less about these User Categories. But could you guys do something to alleviate my concern that this campaign is unfairly targeting secular ideologies. Isn't Category:Christian Wikipedians just as much a listing of users who self-label as Christian. Why are religious categories more useful for collaboration than the secular ones? --Merzul 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was listed under Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. (All of which are, or will be nominated.) And the article states that it's not a religion but a "social movement". Hence the comparison to the New Age movement cat which was deleted. This is just once of many listed in Category:Social movements. - jc37 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Merzul. The Category:Christian Wikipedians category states just the same thing about self-identification: "This page contains Wikipedians who have identified themselves (at least on Wikipedia) as being adherents of Christianity". It doesn't STATE that it is for collaborative purposes, but it doesn't have to, either. That categore, and Category:Wikipedian Brights, both have a place and neither should be deleted. And come ON, JC37, of course you cannot classify the Brights as a "religion". That doesn't mean that as a ethical system it is not equivalent. Your activity with regard to this category is ill-founded and misguided. It seems to me you just want to feel good about yourself by deleting a whole lot of things that just annoy you for some reason. -- Evertype·✆ 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have suggested to you previously, you may want to do a bit of research, rather than presume what my motivations are. I believe I've stated them rather clearly in several locations. (Including this very thread.) But that aside, again, I ask you to please comment on the topic, not a person, and since you seem to have time now, please feel free to provide the examples that you claimed to not have time for earlier... - jc37 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it may not be a "religion", Wikipedian Brights is a category based on religious ideology. Just becasue the ideology exists to promote a secular worldview (meaning it isn't actually a religion), it is still very much a religious ideology (i.e., secularism would not exist without the counterpoint of religion). It is unfair to target categories based on self-identified anti-religious (not non-religious) ideologies simply because they would be inapproiate to classify under a "religion" category. The Brights movement would not exist without religion, and it is just as valid as Christian Wikipedians or any other self-identification user category. Also, your reasoning in deleting the Wikipedians by philosophy categories would seem to favor deleting the religion categories as well. Why haven't you nominated them? Could it possibly be that nominating Category:Christian Wikipedians for deletion could stir up quite a hornet's nest (of "biblical" proportions)? — DIEGO ^talk 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this category. Merzul sums it up nicely.--
  Boreas 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename bright is a common use word and these so-called brightists have no right to claim the word as their own, or at least not on wikipedia,
  SqueakBox 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, bright is a common use adjective, but Bright is not a common use noun (I'm not aware of any other use as a noun). I believe this issue has been solved by redirecting "Bright Wikipedians" to "Wikipedian Brights", so it is clear that Bright is being used as a noun and no one is claiming the adjective for themselves. — DIEGO ^talk 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bright is not a common use noun. Compare with "Gay", which many say should not be used for homosexuals. The Bright Movement is a religion of which I am proud to be an adherent. Mike Nassau —Preceding comment was added at 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This discussion is a perfect example of why the Brights felt the need to organize: the religious don't perceive our worldview to be valid; if you want to get rid of us, you'd better get rid of all religious, philosophical, ethical, & political (which is, after all, simply a practical application of the above listings) wikipedian groups. Sketch051 21:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And please do not remove or relocate my text again. This is the third time I'm voting here. What's been happening here is unreasonable, as is the recurring call to "do a little research before you say this or that" – what's due here are clearly visible notifications and explanations before removing, merging and editing other people's votes, archiving old polls, re-nominating and so on. My reasons for opposing this deletion are given at Evertype·✆'s vote after DJIndica's, jc37's, DIEGO's and jc37's responses to it. Dan Pelleg 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Brights are a group with membership, a mailing list, a newsletter, etc.. It is composed largely of
  talk 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement per Bigwyrm. I looked at both articles mentioned in the category page, being Brights movement and naturalism (philosophy), and the movement is obviously not a religion. Wait, I just reread the running discussion and relooked at the cat. KEEP as a Wikipedians by philosophy category (though it needs a name that matches the others in that category) since this is a philosophy, not a religion. And while I decidedly do not agree with what they say, it seems a substantial enough 'movement' or 'philosophy' or 'not-religion' to identify users so that they can more easily communicate with each other on topics they share information and interest in. "Brights" should become more active in the WikiProject Philosophy, since they have no 'bright-related' categories, it seems. —ScouterSig 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bright Wikipedians" sounds like "Smart Wikipedians," and so may not be a good category name. Just an afterthought. —ScouterSig 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why the old "Bright Wikipedians" re-directs to the newer, more accurate "Wikipedian Brights". -- Evertype·✆ 09:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There is a Category for Christian Wikipedians so I do not see why a philosophical persuasion which is just as valid should not not be given equal status. It is a fairly new descriptor, but if the number of self identifying Brights continues to grow at the current rate then very soon we shall have occasions to use the category as a collaboration tool. I must disagree with the "Interested in the Brights Movement" label as it both makes the category title unwieldy and also implies that those wikipedians who are members of the group are not neccessarily themselves Brights. I therefore move that the title be changed to "Wikipedian Brights" with no subsequent subtitle as this leaves no ambiguity as to who the members of the group are purporting to be. Heliotic 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not going to debate the validity of the user category, but I do feel the need to address another example of overcategorization. This cat is a subcat of both Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians, itself a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by religion. I have seen keep arguments for this category that state that it is a religious belief, and keep arguments which state that it is not a religious belief. Can we have the supporters decide which one it is, and then delete the other? I can justify the retention of the category in one category or the other, but not both, although I prefer renaming the category as suggested above. I suspect that quite a few of the deletion discussions over the past few months might have been averted by simply restraining an urge to stuff a user category into multiple parent groups. Horologium t-c 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who claimed that the brights movement was a "religious belief"? Anyway, I do believe it should be in a subcat of Wikipedians by religion if that is what it takes to prevent it from being deleted, since the people bent on the outright elimination of vast swaths of user categories appear afraid to touch Wikipedians by Religion. — DIEGO ^talk 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, wow. You might want to strike that after viewing
      Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Category:Wikipedians by religion and all subcats. And pardon me, "religious ideology" vice "religious belief" (a quote from you, earlier). Horologium t-c 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • (added later) And having this category in two parents increases the chance that it will get nuked in a mass deletion; if either all of the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy or Category:Wikipedians by religion are deleted, this cat will be deleted, regardless of the number of parent categories with which it is associated. Find one, and defend it from that position, rather than try and retain it on multiple fronts. Horologium t-c 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is exactly why I think it should only be in a subcat of Wikipedians by Religion. If people decide, for whatever reason, to delete all user categories based on self-identification with a religious ideology, so be it (however misguided that would be). My only point is that certain categories should not be singled out for deletion according to a rationale that should apply to all such categories. Wikipedian Brights is no more or less worthy of deletion than Christian Wikipedians. Also, is there ever any valid reason (apart from transcribing spoken language or fictional dialogue) to write the word um except to be smug? — DIEGO ^talk 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Um) Why do I need to strike anything? Wikipedians by Religion was obviously not deleted for long, since Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Christian Wikipedians are not red links, and they are not up for deletion now, which was exactly my point. Why not? Why were other religion categories spared from the latest user category purge? Are self-identified religious beliefs really any different than self-identified philosophical beliefs? And I already made myself clear how something can be a "religious ideology" (in the sense that it is an ideology that derives its entire existence from from religion) without being a "religious belief". "Belief" and "non-belief" are simply two sides of the same ideological/religious coin; they are both ideologies, but only one is a "belief" in the religious sense. — DIEGO ^talk 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point, which I am apparently having difficulty expressing clearly, is twofold: First, the Religion categories are not sacred cows (pardon the pun) immune from discussion, which invalidates your diatribe about the nominator being "afraid to touch Wikipedians by Religion", and secondly, the religion categories were not in this round of deletion because the discussion revolves around Category:Wikipedians by philosophy and all of its subcats, of which the Christian cat is not a member (and never has been, judging from the edit history of the category). The supporters of this category seem to be confused as to whether it is a philosophy category or a religion category, or something else altogether. And while it is not apparent from the category history, The brights cat would have been nuked with all of the religion categories; it was not tagged because it was buried several layers down inside Category:Wikipedians by religion and didn't get tagged with most of the other subcats when they were all nominated for deletion (twice). So far, most of the keep arguments seem to revolve around "The Christians have a category, so I want one too", or variations thereof. That is not a rationale for retaining either category. Horologium t-c 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (This is not about the topic, unfortunately, but about the discussion, and those discussing. I have no problem with this - and all other such commentary - being moved to the talk page.) - I really had hoped that this discussion would be more civil than the last. But really, attacking anyone who comments is a bad idea. I've suggested to those who continually feel the need to attack me, that they perhaps should do some research before making such blanket accusations. We are Wikipedians, after all, and I would "think" that looking for references would be second nature. I think it's truly sad that a discussion about a category, regardless of its topic, should bring such polemic divisiveness. Yes, I realise that when people identify with something they may get "attached" to it, and as such, when they feel it's being "attacked", they might defend it in any manner they choose. Even if such manner is no where near Wikiquette, or civility. The fact of the matter is that regardless if the christian Wikipedian category , the bright Wikipedian category, or even every Wikipedian category, is deleted, Wikipedia won't crash and burn. Saying that "I want mine if they get theirs" has nothing to do with collaboration, but instead has everything to do with identification, and honestly,
  good faith to me. The whole idea of verifiability would seem to indicate that all one should be doing is summarising reference material of some kind. You know what hasn't happened here is discussion of the article. It's a single article. And as VegaDark notes in another discussion below: "If categories were allowed for collaborating on a single article, that would set precedent to allow 2,062,523 categories. " - This article doesn't even have a related category. But it needs a Wikipedian category? Scream, shout, make accusations, demand equal representation, demand equal rights, claim that you've been abused, claim that no one understands you, claim that it's unfair, demand that you should get what's yours. Feel free (though if you do it too intently, there may be repercussions outside of this venue). But realise, that none of those rationales qualifies for a reason to keep. So be aware that it's likely whomever closes this may be discounting your comments when attempting to determine consensus (as, as we all know, this is not a "vote"). Rack up a 1000 "keeps". If you don't provide something more substantial, don't be surprised at the results. I honestly have become a bit pragmatic, and half expect more vitriol in response. But I suppose that's what may happen when people's pride gets involved (especially when it's involved with something that it (their pride) needn't and shouldn't have been involved in). - jc37 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Although I agree with most of what you're saying I disagree with "that you can get someone of what you presume is a contrary bias to proofread your work seem to be begging the question of

  WP:AGF as I'm assuming good faith of those with differing POVs. (For example, while editing the Beatitudes article, I sought out a Christian to make sure I wasn't offending anyone.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per nom. --RucasHost 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I am one who identified the Brights Movement as a religion. It all depends on one's definition of religion. If Pantheism and Buddhism are religions, then the Brights movement is a religion. If you think a religion must incorporate a personal deity that can be worshiped and prayed to, then it is not. If you think religion is how a person relates to ultimate reality, how one decides what is true and establishes one's ethics and values, then it is. To me it is a religion and it is one I agree with and identify with. I can not understand why any user category should be deleted. Maybe if we are limited in the bytes of information which can be stored. I do not understand why political categories were deleted. I would like to know who is Green. What does it harm? Mike Nassau 19:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:BEANS; oppose renaming Category:Wikipedian Brights to "interested in -ism" per nom (identification does not necessarily translate to interest); no opinion on keep/delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. This category benefits Wikipedia by fostering collaboration and discussion. No good reason to delete or rename. --S.dedalus 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly seems to be no consensus to delete. -- Evertype·✆ 09:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Wikipedian Brights (see my previous comments) and Delete Category:Bright Wikipedians. I see no benefit in this latter category which appears to be empty. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding the proposal for deletion: The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view. In what way is this different from The Christian movement is a social movement that aims to promote public belief and acknowledgment of a theistic world view.? -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, for one thing, I think you may be misdefining Christians. But that aside, I can understand the suggestion that this be recatted to
  Bright movement and two founders, one of which redirects back to Bright movement.) And the fact that the "movement" is an internet website-based phenomenon. (Precedents already stated above.) - jc37 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This category is already in Category:Wikipedians by religion. Since this category (specifically) is being discussed (albeit as part of a larger discussion) a simple edit to remove Category:Wikipedians by philosophy is not an appropriate edit, although I am sorely tempted to do so. Would removing it from the philosophy category satisfy you, jc37? (I ask you because you are the nominee and appear to be the "point man" on the issue.) Horologium t-c 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it wouldn't actually deal with the nomination, just with the related fact that all the "by philosophy" cats were nominated, and this was one (though I haven't yet renommed several due to confusion last time). Note my comments immediately above yours, for a few other issues. Now, as I look through this discussion, I think this is floating somewhere between no consensus and delete (nearest to delete), though if you'd asked me a few days ago, I'd have suggested that it was a solid delete. (A few Wikipedians have recently started to address the questions of the nomination, though the best examples of collaboration are still potential collaboration. And that to only one, maybe two, articles.) However, I think
  WP:BEANS... However, as I say, I likely wouldn't oppose such a closure, for just those reasons. - jc37 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Okay, I went ahead and removed it Category:Wikipedians by philosophy from the category page (separating it from the parent cat), so a "keep" or "no consensus" result will remove this category from the philosophy section. A "delete" result will also remove it from the philosophy cat. (small smile) Horologium t-c 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And it was reverted back by Evertype. I'm not going to edit war over this; it can be hashed out at DRV. Horologium t-c 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And Evertype, please stop dragging Christianity (your all-purpose bogeyman) into this discussion; it has been explained to you several times why this category (and not the Christian category, or any of the numerous other theistic religion categories besides Christianity) was tagged for discussion. Horologium t-c 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, I have only mentioned Christianity twice. The first time to say that Category:Christian Wikipedians was just as much self-identification as Category:Wikipedian Brights. The second time, here was to suggest that Christianity as a "social movement" is not really very different from the Brights as a "social movement". I think this hardly qualifies as a sign that I consider Christianity "my all-purpose bogeyman". You may have confused my two equivalence arguments with other comments made by others above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category with unclear name (the Bright redirect) and the category to which it redirects. The so-called movement's definition is not really defining/distinguishing. Doczilla 05:37, 1 November 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 rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism, and recat. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, those who so self-categorize are likely to have an interest in, and knowledge of, the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per jc37. Users in this category are more able to collaborate on the development and maintenance of articles related to transhumanism (133, not counting overlaps!). I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as transhuman and those who are interested in transhumanism without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom- broad cultural movement cats aren't necessary. Lurker (said · done) 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "interested in". Again, Tranhumanism, as a philosophy, is much more narrow and clearly defined (but no less ridiculous) than "new age". The reason listed in the proposal is quite a stretch. What is the purpose of deleting all these categories? If there is even a remote chance that they could be helpful to someone, then there should be a compelling reason to delete them. "It's just like 'new age'" is not a compelling reason (especially since it is not an apt comparison). Are we trying to save space on the servers? — DIEGO ^talk 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Looks like this is fairly widely used. If this gets deleted, though, this guy probably won't be happy. :P GlassCobra 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, he is not a member of the category, although he has a related userbox on his page. Horologium t-c 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism (lowercase 'T') per nom and Bigwyrm. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, sorry I missed that (again). - jc37 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Again this category benefits Wikipedia by fostering collaboration and discussion. No good reason to delete or rename. The category is narrow enough to be useful. It has nothing to do with New Age, which is quite different. --S.dedalus 23:12, 28 October 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 rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here.- jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism, and recat. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - it's hard to conceive of someone describing themselves as a "surrealist" without having some (potentially useful) knowledge of surrealism. bd2412 T 07:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fish Delete As with previous broad philosophical movement cats. Lurker (said · done) 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Although I think the new age precedent is much more applicable in this case, so I wouldn't object to deletion. But why bother deleting it? It's not hurting anyone. — DIEGO ^talk 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion of this category would not prevent the creation of an "interested in..." category. There is no value in renaming merely for the sake of preserving categorisation; indeed, it may be actively misleading by producing inaccurate categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and Rename per jc37. The subject of surrealism is not so broad as to defy collaboration. Also, the broader category will foster such collaboration, as it will include both those users who identify as surrealist and those who are interested in the subject without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An "interest" category ideally would not include people who merely identify as surrealist. Straightforward deletion and natural repopulation of an 'interest' category would result in a more accurate category and, thus, would be more useful for collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and Rename as per Bigwyrm. An interest in surrealism is surely not objectionable, nor is it susceptible to lead to disruption of discussion. Jasy jatere 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it isn't objectionable or disruptive, these are not the reasons for deletion. Also, this category does not convey an "interest in surrealism" but a mere affiliation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and allow the "interested in..." category to be created and populated naturally: not everyone who is a surrealist is necessarily interested in surrealism. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still disagree with you on that point. Intelligently identifying with an ideology inherently implies interest in that ideology. Those few who identify with any particular ideology, but have no interest in that ideology, have a level of confusion that will not prevent them from adding themselves to the "...interested in..." category anyway. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine ... As I think I've said previously, I think your argument has merit when the scope of the subject is narrow and clearly defined (e.g. in the discussions for 'structural realism' and 'Bayesian probability', I supported renaming). I do not think that is the case with surrealism ... but, anyway, the point is relevant only if one subscribes to my assumption about narrow definition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename is the best option. The name as is makes it seem like the 'pedians are works of surrealism. —ScouterSig 01:35, 1 November 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 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here. Note that one of those deleted was "Marxian Wikipedians". - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent. This is a political ideology category and essentially a copy of the misnamed Category:Marxian Wikipedians, which was previously deleted. The concerns remain the same as before: this type of category has the potential to be divisive, may assist POV-pushers (by providing a grouping of editors of a certain viewpoint), and serves primarily as a userpage notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions on political cats. Lurker (said · done) 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This should have already been deleted in the political ideologies purge. It shouldn't escape simply because it is classified as a "philosophy". — DIEGO ^talk 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent & nom...
  SkierRMH 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Itis as much a philosophical and academic as a political category at this point. It does not actual harm, and hypotheses about being divisive are just hypotheses. Anything at WP has the potential to be divisive--let's deal with just the actual problems if they arise. DGG (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent.—ScouterSig 01:36, 1 November 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 17:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLORNOTHING fans out there: As "Masculist Wikipedians" was deleted, so too should "Feminist Wikipedians".. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, political ideologies have no place in the user categories. ^
  ^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per previous discussion on political ideology cats. Lurker (said · done) 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and precedents. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom (it's a political ideology). — DIEGO ^talk 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent on political ideologies.
  SkierRMH 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, user cats are intended to help us write an encyclopedia.
  ^T/C 04:34, 30 October 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 rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Bayesian - Statistical/probability theories and methods. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian probability Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian statistics, to match the title of Category:Bayesian statistics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reading over the pages linked on
    Bayesian, this appears to be about more than statistics. - jc37 09:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "probability" would (probably) be better. Alai 18:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're right: Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian probability is a more encompassing title, inclusive of both the general philosophy and the specific methods. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:39, 27 October 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 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trystero Wikipedians - See The Crying of Lot 49. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, it's difficult to imagine a
  use for this category when it is populated by a userbox that reads "This user believes Wikipedia Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, too much of an inside joke. Was it really necessary to renominate this? It seemed to be uncontroversially headed for deletion in the original discussion. bd2412 T 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What the hell is this? — DIEGO ^talk 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though if it fails, I just may add the category myself, since I just read it. Haha, yes Diego: it's basically an inside joke, like BD says. —ScouterSig 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too esoteric, 'inside', and they'll be waiting too long a time... hmm, maybe a category for 'Wikipedians waiting for Godot' ;} —Preceding
  talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 October 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 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)#Reception_and_fandom - I suppose it's comparable to being a Trekkie/Trekker who reveres James T. Kirk. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television). - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If no consensus to delete, merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too narrow to be useful. bd2412 T 07:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. But could someone please start a "Kirkian Wikipedians" category? — DIEGO ^talk 18:10, 26 October 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 all. I am most swayed to delete by the arguments by ^demon, WaltCip and ScouterSig. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by video game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And all subcategories. In process of tagging. All tagged. ^

^{[omg plz]} 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Playing a particular video game does not foster contribution and is only helpful for

^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nom. ^
  ^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep We have articles on video games, so it helps to have a place to find people who know about them.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:31, 10/22/2007
• Delete all. Verifiability, not truth. Knowing how to play a game has nothing to do with citing sources. --Kbdank71 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On the contrary, being interested enough to include a game on your user page indicates that you might have a better idea where to find resources on that topic than most other editors. Krychek 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Might" being the operative word there. Of the ten people in Category:Wikipedians who play Halo, 60% of them have made no Halo-related edits in their last 500. A good amount of the remaining 40% were vandalism reverting, which anyone can do. --Kbdank71 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to wonder, have you performed the same analysis on other categories? If that is your criterion, I imagine most categories would disappear. I've never touched articles on many of my own areas of expertise, but I would probably contribute if asked. Krychek 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I imagine they would. Let me ask you a few questions: if you've never touched articles in your areas of expertise, why do you have the categories on your user page? You got a request to help at the origami portal, did you contribute to that? --Kbdank71 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I look forward to a similar analysis being carried out on Category:User de-1, Category:User en-5, and the like. Alai 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Wikipedia is not MySpace. Even if it allows readers to find editors knowledgeable on various games, how much of Wikipedia's internals is exposed enough to let readers find userpages in the first place? Shadow1 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • None, if we delete the categories that are made to help us find them... And it allows editors to find knowledgeable people in order to write better articles, not readers to find people to ask questions to.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:53, 10/22/2007
• Delete - Nobody's going to join this category just because they can help other editors collaborate on them. That's what Wikiprojects are for.--WaltCip 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are user categories for then?
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:06, 10/22/2007
    • My position is that user categories should just be deleted and overhauled altogether, but that's another story.--WaltCip 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah that's what I figured. But I think discussions for individual categories should go under the assumption that user categories in general are warranted for the purpose of collaboration. So, for the specific purpose of collaborating on video game articles, this category should stay -- and the assumption that no one will join it in order to collaborate is unfounded.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:41, 10/22/2007
• Strong Keep Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive video games and Category:Wikipedians by video game console. Weak keep the individual game subcats. Several of these have multiple articles. I would support deletion of the single-article video games, however. Would you be interested in splitting the nom? - jc37 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per nominator, who said they are only helpful for
  social networking. As we know, WP isn't for social networking. I further feel these cats don't offer anything constructive to the editing of an encyclopedia, giving that a lot of video games already have their own articles. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep As noted before, if the same criteria were applied everywhere, most categories would disappear. Besides, what's the harm in letting people organize themselves by what video games they play?-Link 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also as noted before, being harmless does not preclude a category from being useless and these cats are certainly useless. Further, in case you haven't noticed, most categories are do have the illusion of disappearing. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the last part is not quite accurate. Nearly half of user categories are language categories (i.e. those starting with Category:User) and a deletion nomination of those is sure to fail (in fact, I think one was
    snowball-kept a few months ago). In addition to those, there are approximately another two thousand user categories which I don't think anyone has any intention of nominating. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. A strong group of categories which enables collaboration by subject.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Wikipedians who play video games. I may even think that Category:Wikipedians by game system (ie. Gamecube, NES, PS2, etc) could be useful, but this many sub categories fractures members into tiny categories which hinder rather than help community. If you like a specific game that much, a note on your page and/or a userbox would be fine. User cats are unnecessary. —ScouterSig 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another social networking category. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  ^T/C 04:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Connecting fans with a shared interest can be useful for collaboration. Doczilla 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename I agree with Scouter. Martin B 14:27, 3 November 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 Deleted per precedent of anti-XXX categories and userboxes. ^

Category:Users Who Are Anti-High School Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, somehow I don't see why we need a category for this. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:22, 22 October 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 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Chatham House Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Is grammar school more important than

high school? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This particular grammar school was attended by a prime minister of Great Britain - it was at one time the largest grammar school in England and it's been around since the 1750's - it's pretty notable. SteveBaker 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the school isn't in question. In any event, the equivalent category for

Bencherlite^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per previous discussion Lurker (said · done) 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete especially given unanimous support for deletion of the high school "alma mater" categories. Not that it's a vote, but there weren't any editors voicing an opinion for keeping them. This one should be even clearer. Kestenbaum 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have an article on Chatham House Grammar School, and people who go/went there may want to collaborate with others who went there in order to improve it, or to create related articles. This is why we have user categories to begin with. I don't see what makes this one so different; aside from it being small, but that's irrelevant.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:33, 10/23/2007
• Delete per precedent as cited by
  Bencherlite^Talk 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • They might not all necessarily know that the article exists. People add themselves to categories based on which ones apply to them, not with the editing of a specific article in mind. If someone decides to contribute to this article and no one who went to the school is participating in that article yet, the contributor has no way of finding these people. This is exactly what user categories are for. \
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:53, 10/23/2007
    • I'd be very surprised if potential editors didn't know that the article about the school existed, but could still find this category.
      Bencherlite^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep per Equazacion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Equazacion. User categories are harmless to the main encyclopedia - if it helps editors to collaborate - it's a small price to pay. SteveBaker 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per numerous precedents. Collaboration for the ONE related article can be accomplished on the school's talk page. Horologium t-c 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my previous answer to ProveIt's identical statement.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:54, 10/24/2007
• Delete per numerous precedents and Bencherlite. The "harmless" argument isn't particularly convincing. First, being harmless does not preclude a category from being useless. Second, contributing to category clutter, which reduces navigability, is harmful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Collaboration can occur on the article's talk page, If categories were allowed for collaborating on a single article, that would set precedent to allow 2,062,523 categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 25 October 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 Bronze and Silver, keep Gold. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Bronze Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Gold Award and Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Silver Award

Categorisation on the basis of receiving an award

• Delete all as nom and per precedent (see
  here). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Gold cat, Delete Bronze and Silverl. Gold Award is the highest in Girl Scouting and should be kept. It's a very notable achievement. Rlevse 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't dispute your assertion since I don't really know much about the Girl Scouts of America, but what is the purpose of categorising on that basis? Why does the userbox or a userpage notice not suffice to convey this information? I would appreciate any clarification you could provide. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. We don't currently have a similar category for biographical articles; even if we did, it would likely be deleted per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners.[reply]
    • Well, I guess the same purpose as something like Category:People from Grand Rapids, Michigan. I don't see that as important as a US Presidents category either. Rlevse 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to rephrase my question.
        foster encyclopedic collaboration (such as ability to translate a language). The question I was getting at (and I apologise for the ambiguity in my comment) is: how does a grouping of users who've received the Girl Scouts Gold Award foster encyclopedic collaboration? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Ah, Equazcion says it better than I could have below.Rlevse 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep gold cat per Rlevse, roughly equivalent to Category:Eagle Scout Wikipedians and represents a great deal of hard work, viable and not divisive. Chris 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute any of your points, but what value does the category hold above and beyond the userbox? How does it help to
    foster encyclopedic collaboration? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Of course.Rlevse 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom --evrik ^(talk) 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hate to bring this up again, but this has about as much use as Category:Wikipedian guitarists, only more so -- if you want to find someone who knows about girls scouts, for article info or what have you, who better to turn to than a gold award winner? Heck, that's like having an "expert guitarists" category where you can find the best musicians to record samples. In all seriousness, if other user categories are useful for finding people who know about a particular field, then this is useful for that reason too -- and then some, since it also denotes a level of knowledge/experience, not just an interest. If you delete this for not being useful as a collaborative tool then I say delete all user categories, 'cause if this ain't useful, none of 'em are.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:52, 10/22/2007
  • Then how about merging and renaming all of the categories into Category:Wikipedians in the Girl Scouts of America, to match Category:Wikipedians in the Boy Scouts of America? After all, if it is the affiliation with the organisation that is useful, the category name should reflect that. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I already said, that award denotes that the bearer is a better bet for good information than just any average member. It's useful to have the most reliable people in a separate category. You know those article tags that request the attention of an expert in the field? Well, here's how you find your girl scouts expert, should you ever need one.
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:04, 10/22/2007

• Keep per EquazcionSumoeagle179 10:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think that these awards are different than Wikipedian awards (the deletion of which are in some of the examples of precedent above). That said, if we don't categorise people in articles by award, we probably have no need to categorise Wikipedians by them either. (See
  WP:OCAT#Award winners.) However, as per that guideline, these may be notable enough for categorisation. (And potentially useful for collaboration, as award winners may be more knowledgable about related topics.) So I'm staying Neutral, for now. - jc37 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep the gold cat per Rlevse comment above. Also, no harm in keeping them all. R. Baley 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bronze and silver, no opinion on gold for now. VegaDark (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gold Award category. 5 of the 6 examples BlackFalcon brought up are categories for in-Wikipedia awards (though I'm sure anyone could find more examples of categories of awards outside of Wikipedia). A Gold Award category serves a community-building process by noting that these Wikipedians can serve as valuable resources, more so than a broader "GSUSA Wikipedian" category: which may also be useful, because there are Girl Scouts who do not have the Gold Award who could be resources. By noting the knowledge and interest, the category inherently is similar to Category:Wikipedians by interest and Category:Wikipedians by organization, both of which are huge categories with many sub-cats. —ScouterSig 12:16, 26 October 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 upmerge for now. No prejudice against nomination of Category:Former Wikipedians. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Exactly the opposite of useful for collaboration. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Former Wikipedians per evrik. Delete. This is something that is useful to know for a specific editor, but the userpage notice suffices for that; I can think of no reason to browse through a category of retired editors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Utterly harmless; could be useful - if I happen to glance in there and see that someone I know to have covered a certain area has retired, I might keep a closer eye on their contributions. This may occur even if I was not actively looking at userpages for retirement notices. This is almost the same as looking at what is transcluded from the template, except there are bound to be false positives for the template arising from discussion of same. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would the template's whatlinkshere provide false positives? All transclusions are clearly marked and, unless there was some sort of bug, would also be categorised. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if it's subst'ed? bd2412 T 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I suppose 'human error' (substing a template that shouldn't be substed), for lack of a better term, could yield a discrepancy. However, when we are at this level of detail, we're discussing not just a casual "glance" but a fairly thorough investigation. Rather than happening upon this category, recognising a username, and taking up an abandoned task, isn't it far more likely that one would notice that a certain area was become backlogged or that a certain editor had stopped contributing, with the discovery of the 'retired' status coming via the userpage rather than a category? A category is really only useful when it is plausible that someone might deliberately browse through it ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18#Category:Wikipedians by active status.2C_Category:Wikipedians_who_are_not_currently active and Category:Wikipedians who are partially active. --evrik ^(talk) 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnt maybe merge the category with: Category:Former Wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was waiting to nominate this until after the closure of the DRV noted above. I'll wait until then to also nominate Former Wikipedians, as well. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it should be merged regardless. The distinction between "former" and "retired" is not clear enough to merit separate categories. Categorising on the basis of difference in status (active/inactive) is one thing, but categorising on the basis of which userbox an editor happens to use is altogether different. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, but failing that, merge. As I said in the DRV noted above, this category is populated by a userbox, so instead of telling the world you've left twice on the same page (userbox and cat), you're only saying it once. Certainly doesn't help with collaboration. --Kbdank71 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone 'retires,' they will probably note it with something prominent on the top of their userpage--why would they hide it at the end? —ScouterSig 21:54, 26 October 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 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boxer owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, see discussion of

Wikipedians by pet. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per precedent. The userbox is sufficient to express the affiliation; a category is not needed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per precedent. Similar to the other lifestyle cats. (Boxer cats... Oh, no puns there : ) - jc37 21:42, 22 October 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 Closed to be relisted - These "discussions" are becoming the very definition of "disruption". They've devolved into philosophical debate on the relevance of User categories in general, rather than the merely the subcats of

Category:Wikipedians by philosophy - The majority of these are either related to a single article, or are too broad for inclusion, or both. A few exceptions are those which are fields of study (including religious study), which should be renamed to reflect this. While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an enormous amount of overlap between this category and many of its sub-categories whcih you've nominated individually below. Are you just proposing in this instance to eliminate the meta-category and leave the sub-categories (if they are kept) floating individually? If not, what do you propose to do if this nomination passes while nominations for individual subcategories fail (or vice versa). bd2412 T 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm proposing deleting this category, and either deleting several which are not more than just a single-article-based-belief/philosophy, with a too-broad statement of self-identification; and/or renaming those which are a part of philosophical study (several of which follow a written code of morality/ethics). But as a category, and as a grouping, these are just a bad idea. a philosophy could be religious, artistic, mathematic, scientific, political, etc.

  And what's the "cut-off" line for including every possible belief that a person may have?

  At the moment, the current ongoing consensus seems to be that self-identification categories should be removed. (Both LGBT Wikipedians and Furry Wikipedians closures have now been upheld at DRV.) And categories which only propose possible collaboration to a single article should also be removed, as someone who may be interested in that article is likely already editing it (or not, as is their choice).

  So the nominations are based on those two conventions as criteria.

  The groupings below were just to try to group together similar things, rather than just have one large nomination of "delete all". I feel that this will give ample opportunity for those with thoughts and concerns to voice them. (So, for example, if someone may see a reason to delete one group, but rename another, or whatever.)

  I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  These objections about the scope and delineation of membership in categories misses one crucial distinction between user categories and other types--membership is based on our own self-understanding. We put ourselves in these categories. We are both subject and object in these cases. We decide where it is appropriate to 'cut off'. The dilemma is a false. Also, would you explain why it is a problem that a philosophy may refer to more than one specific domain of knowledge. You state that this is a "bad idea" without providing an explanation as to why it is such. DionysosProteus 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories should be specific in usage, else they are less effective, to possibly becoming useless. As for the rest, "these categories" are renamed, merged, or deleted on a regular basis. As are articles, templates, and so on. If you have concerns with the process, you're welcome to take it to an appropriate discussion page, but atm, you're not addressing this specific nomination. - jc37 13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a response to your raising of the specific objection about the cut-off for categorizing a person's belief. That it also has more general applicability is besides the point. Would you kindly answer the question and explain the reasoning behind your claim that it is a "bad idea", unless the claim about specificy was meant to be that? What is non-specific about "Marxist"? That a philosophy may be applied in numerous disciplines in no way implies a lack of specificy about the intellectual approach. Are you saying that you'd prefer another level of sub-categories? (Marxist economists, Marxist artists, etc.) Wikipedia articles are very often interdisciplinary in nature; it is not unreasonable for user cateogries to reflect that. Atomisation is not an argument. DionysosProteus 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I did answer the question: "Categories should be specific in usage, else they are less effective, to possibly becoming useless.". That aside, I think I mentioned somewhere that this meta-discussion should be discussed on a talk page somewhere else. If this continues, I'll be moving such comments to a talk page, where everyone will be welcome to discuss Wikipedian categories in general, as well as the deletion process on Wikipedia. However this thread is not the appropriate place for that discussion. - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You have failed to recognise that I am addressing the specifics of the way in which a wikipedian's belief system impacts on editing practices. Threatening to remove a discussion because you have failed to follow the reasoning is inappropriate. You have also failed to explain in what way a category such as "Marxist Wikipedians" is in any way non-specific, which, you have explained, was what you meant by a "bad idea". You are proposing to delete the by philosophy categories without providing a sufficient explanation of why you consider them "non-specific". DionysosProteus 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep same reason as above. I dislike the idea that a few people who think these harmful are trying to impose their view on the large group of WPedians who use these categories and think otherwise. It would be fair to notify them individually and hear what they think--perhaps they will say they don't really want or need it and didn't realize it was different from userboxes. I do not use these categories, but I let other WPedians deal with things like this their own way. If it can not be shown to be actually harming the encyclopedia, I would leave such categories alone. I would want for each individual category evidence that it a/is being used primarily for extensive social networking or b/ is being used for the formation of a cabal or an attempt at POV-pushing.
• In this particular case, any evidence that those in the philosophy categories are using the categories for social purposes? or to unfairly influence articles? Why use this process to eliminate the innocuous? DGG (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "I dislike the idea that a few people who think these harmful are trying to impose their view on the large group of WPedians who use these categories and think otherwise." - This has been discussed a lot in the past, but to summarise: typically user membership is due to placing a userbox. The categorisation is often for "feel good" reasons, and has nothing to do with collaboration. (A case in point is a situation we had with the zodiac cats in the past.) And these are not just a few individual editors. These same discussions have had very few of the same members. This is just like any XfD discussion. The categories are tagged. If someone wishes to show interest, they will.

  So I'm not sure that it's constructive or helpful here to make comments in a discussion claiming that your comments are based on not liking the process, the forum for the process, or how the process is currently turning out, rather than on the specific category or categories under discussion. And that goes for all the copy-pasted duplicates of the above comments on down the page. (comments were merged) - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some faulty reasoning in the comment above: "The categories are tagged. If someone wishes to show interest, they will." This presumes that each user that has placed themselves in a category also has that category on their watch list and are aware of the tagging. That is not a reasonable assumption to make. DionysosProteus 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the process of deletion discussions on Wikipedia. If yo uhave issues with that process, feel free to start a discussion on a talk page somewhere. As noted above, this thread is not the appropriate place for it. - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You misrepresent my comment. It was the faulty reasoning behind your assumptions about how other wikipedians relate to that process, not the process itself, that I critised. Just because something is up for deletion and those in the category do not take part in the discussion of its deletion, in no way implies that they are consenting to the process nor are not interested in it. You cannot make that assumption. It is your assumption that is at fault, not the process. DionysosProteus 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete for the same reasons as
  this UCFD discussion and this DRV discussion. Apparently, all of those and this cat have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site, and no one cares what you are or who you support just how you edit. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: You do realize that this is a user category, right? What does user "notability" have to do with anything?!? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Most modern critical theory in the humanities recognizes that how one writes is partly determined by the views one holds; a great deal of scholarly criticism makes a point of detailing their author's approach. The same applies to the writing and choices for inclusion or exclusion of material made by editors. These are categories that categorize Wikipedians, so the notability criterion by definition does not apply (if it did, the vast majority of editors in all wikipedian categories would have to be removed). The categories to which I belong relate neither to a single article alone nor are too broad to be meaningful. These categories are a useful way of understanding from where a line taken by an editor is coming; just as it is useful to understand an editor's nationality, or many of the other categories. The suggestion that anyone is attempting to use these categories for the purposes of social networking strikes me as both presumptuous and faintly ridiculous; why on earth would anyone use this when there are plenty of far better forums designed for it? Note also: if the philosophy categories are removed, the religion ones ought to be removed as well. DionysosProteus 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, for all the things you want this for ("These categories are a useful way of understanding from where a line taken by an editor is coming;"), a userpage notice - such as a userbox - should be enough. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  But it doesn't provide the same easy access to other editors with the same point of view. (The Fun Destroyers strike again...) Thanos6 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking for editors "with the same point of view", is helpful how? - jc37 10:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  To discuss the writing of an article, or if the editor has a view opposed to yours, to perhaps amicably settle a dispute that has spilled beyond a talk page's confines. Thanos6 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So, Canvassing? Depending on the intent, probably not a good idea either. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That not what Thanos6 said. I will assume in good faith that you did not misread that on purpose. . . I’m sure you agree that the constructive discussion of articles of common interest is central to improving Wikipedia and settling disputes. --S.dedalus 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Why should we delete them? They are some way against encyclopedic content in wikipedia? If yes then let's delete all userboxes/categories then... --Enerccio 11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (

  WP:ALLORNOTHING.) - That aside, I think you miss the rationales for these nominations. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• STRONG KEEP We have this "philosophy category" witchhunt far too often. Consensus is that Wikipedians want to be identified in this way, and that it is useful that it be possible. -- Evertype·✆ 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE RENAMING as well. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]