merged my accidental duplicate comment |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →June 16: contested speedy nominations |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===June 16=== |
===June 16=== |
||
====User categories deleted out of process==== |
|||
{{col-begin|class=references-small}} |
|||
{{col-break}} |
|||
* [[:Category:Absurdist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Anarchist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Anti-socialist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:BBW Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:British royalist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Capitalist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Centrist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Conservative Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Dadaist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Distributist wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Furry Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Geek Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:German monarchist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Green Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Independent Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Kemalist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Leftist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Liberal Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Libertarian Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Marxian Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Masculist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Minarchist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Moderate Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Nerd Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Political Centrist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Political Conservative Wikipedians]] |
|||
{{col-break}} |
|||
* [[:Category:Political Liberal Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Political Libertarian Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Pregnant Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Progressive Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Religious Left Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Religious socialist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Republican Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Rightist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Social democratic Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Socialist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Strict Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Syndicalist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Technocrat Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Theoretical Communist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:WSPQ Wikipedians]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedian Classical Liberals]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedian DC Downsizers]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedian barefooters]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians against strict gun control]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians by political ideology]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves "jack of all trades"]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who favor strict gun control]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who support Canadian National Unity]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians who support the Canadian Crown]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians with low bone density]] |
|||
* [[:Category:Wikipedians with nits]] |
|||
{{col-end}} |
|||
'''Contested speedy deletions, restored as procedural nomination'''. These categories were all deleted out of process by [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]], and they have been contested by other editors. In discussions on my talk page, Dmcdevit has not identified any applicable [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]], and a [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New_C4:_Advocacy_categories|proposal to create a new CSD criterion for advocacy categories]] has not so far achieved consensus.<br />The reasons listed in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Dmcdevit&page=&pattern=&limit=100&offset=0 deletion log] for these deletions was ''"Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to [[WP:SOAP]], [[WP:NOT#WEBSPACE]], and especially [[WP:ENC]]; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.)"'' However, [[WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria]] is clear that ''"Reasons derived from [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] ... are not part of the speedy deletion criteria"''. That covers [[WP:SOAP]] and [[WP:NOT#WEBSPACE]]; and [[WP:ENC]] is not even flagged as an essay, let alone a guideline. |
|||
Please note that this is ''not'' a matter for [[WP:DRV]], which says "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". There was no discussion of these categories before their deletion, so [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] is the wrong place. |
|||
I have restored these categories and listed them for discussion so that a decision can be made on their merits. Since this is a procedural nomination, I remain neutral. (If any editors feel that any category raises different issues to the generality of these categories, feel free to split this nomination). --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===June 15=== |
===June 15=== |
||
====[[:Category:Wikipedians by parenthood]]==== |
====[[:Category:Wikipedians by parenthood]]==== |
Revision as of 09:42, 16 June 2007
Speedy nominations
New nominations by date
June 16
User categories deleted out of process
Contested speedy deletions, restored as procedural nomination. These categories were all deleted out of process by Dmcdevit, and they have been contested by other editors. In discussions on my talk page, Dmcdevit has not identified any applicable speedy deletion criteria, and a proposal to create a new CSD criterion for advocacy categories has not so far achieved consensus.
The reasons listed in the deletion log for these deletions was "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.)" However, WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria is clear that "Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ... are not part of the speedy deletion criteria". That covers WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; and WP:ENC is not even flagged as an essay, let alone a guideline.
Please note that this is not a matter for WP:DRV, which says "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". There was no discussion of these categories before their deletion, so deletion review is the wrong place.
I have restored these categories and listed them for discussion so that a decision can be made on their merits. Since this is a procedural nomination, I remain neutral. (If any editors feel that any category raises different issues to the generality of these categories, feel free to split this nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
June 15
Category:Wikipedians by parenthood
This nomination also includes the following:
- Category:Childfree Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Childless Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Father Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Grandfather Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Great-grandfather Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Grandfather Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Mother Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Grandmother Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Great-grandmother Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Grandmother Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These user categories fail the requirement of "provid[ing] a foundation for effective collaboration" set forth in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Most of the pages placed in the categories are there due to transclusions of various userboxes. I have no issue with the userboxes (Wikipedia editors are volunteers and thus deserve a lot of leeway as to what appears in their userspace), but the categories seem entirely unnecessary. The categories are too broad and non-specific to leave open the possibility of a likely correspondence between identity and interests. I think it's fair to say that biologist are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to biology, but I doubt a good case can be made that mothers are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to maternity. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all - Presumably, most of these are a sub-group of Category:Wikipedians who have had sex (plus Category:Wikipedians who have adopted a child, plus Category:Wikipedians who do not have children - for whatever reason). Most of these sound like great userbox material to me, but I have to agree that there is little use for the categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians by language
The speedy closing of this discussion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 15#Category:Wikipedians by language.
Newspeak categories
- Category:User nws
- Category:User nws-1
- Category:User nws-2
- Category:User nws-3
- Category:User nws-4
- Category:User nws-5
- Category:User nws-N
- Category:User ns (added before any !votes)
- Category:User ns-1 (added before any !votes)
"Newspeak"; another joke category whose inclusion in the Language section is doubleplusungood. I'd like to see a consensus where any language that does not have an ISO 639 categorization does not get a Wikipedia category. Articles about the language or dialect are fine, but we don't need six user cats for something that appeared in one book. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All as nom. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Into the memory hole, doubleplusunfacilitates wikicollab. —ptk✰fgs 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Doubleplusdelete - There will never be a Wikipedia in this language, so this isn't useful. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand Newspeak - It has its own article, and is related to at least two other Orwellian works, and its article offers reference to topical cultural references such as soundbites, and so on. So collaboration usage isn't in doubt. But more than a single category is too much in this case. (You either understand it, or you don't.) One of these days I am going to get around to nominating the hordes of redundant duplicative (and/or babelised) userboxes for "merging" at WP:TFD. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians by gender
Category:Wikipedians by gender and its three subcategories organise users by gender: male, female, and transgender. The categorisation of users seems to be almost exclusively the result of various userboxes, listed at the top of each subcategory's page. I think users should be allowed to identify their sex or gender via a userbox, especially since it can aid communication, prevent confusion in comments, and allow the avoidance of "he or she", "she or he", "s/he", "s(he)", and the like. However, I see no purpose to categorising users based on gender. It serves no encyclopedic end and deleting the categories (unlike deleting the userboxes) is not invasive. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. This one is not controversial; nobody is going to seach for collaborators by gender. It's another case of userboxen linked with needless categorization. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete too broad. –Pomte 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all - Here's a fun one. Typically when we have 2 or 3 categories which together are all-inclusive, we would delete at least one, since it's typically a negative or "not" category. In this case, each is "positive cat to themselves, and a "not" category to the others. (This user is female, but not male or transgender; This user is male, but not female or transgender; This user is transgender, but not male or female.) While I can definitely see collaboration possibilities by "extension" (such as on women's rights issues, or even understanding first hand about pregnancy), these are just too "broad". Narrower categories should handle such collaboration benefits (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians by religion
Wikipedia is not MySpace. Any page that is not an article should either further the organisation or improvement of articles or "provide a foundation for effective collaboration". In short, all pages should be targeted toward the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Any page that is not may be deleted. Of course, the criteria above are and should be interpreted rather loosely as Wikipedia's editors are volunteers and not employees.
Many user categories meet the criteria outlined above. For instance, Category:Wikipedians by access to sources and references and Category:Wikipedians by language aid article improvement via sourcing and translation, respectively. Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories do not. The categories group users by religion, often because a user added one or another userbox to their userpage. However, grouping users by religious identification does not in any way aid article improvement, since identifying with a religious philosophy does not necessarily mean that one has an interest in it. Users can express their religious views via a userbox without having to be classified into a category.
To empty the categories, one would need to:
- Edit all religion userboxes so that they no longer categorise pages on which they are transcluded, and
- Edit any userpages that were categorised manually (i.e., not by a userbox) and remove the categorisation (either manually or by a bot) to discourage recreation of the categories.
Please note that I am not advocating the deletion of religion userboxes (per my point about volunteers versus employees). Removing a userbox from someone's userpage is quite invasive and may irritate a lot of people; removing their userpage from a category is a minor edit that may even go unnoticed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously these stupid things should go. They have no encyclopedic purpose and their only uses are to abuse Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Remove from userboxes-People who do manually add the category are doing it for a reason. Lumping that together with accidentally categorization is inappropriate. And tony, please try to AGF. Making such (clearly unprovable) accusations is absolutely unacceptable Bladestorm 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all - I tend to agree with this. Just because someone belongs to x religion, it does not mean they are more likely to collaborate on articles relating to that religion. Such people can create or join existing "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories if that is the case. User categories are used to seek out others in the category, and I don't see what encyclopedic use there would be to seek out users in these categories that "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories wouldn't accomplish better. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- Wikipedia is, in reality, attempting to create a collaborative encyclopedia by "mail". The fact that the users are required to reach a consensus without seeing or talking to another person is inherently difficult. Any information which an editor wishes to impart about him/herself in order to enhance dialogue should be actively encouraged. It is human nature to build upon a dialogue from common reference points. Any information that might speed this process is beneficial to wikipedia as a whole. Prester John 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your comment that any information an editor wishes to impart is beneficial; I disagree, however, that the category is necessary to do that. The userbox or a note on his or her user page is necessary; those will remain unaffected. --Iamunknown 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- While that's a valid POV, if it's your opinion, that argument applies to all Wikipedian categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your comment that any information an editor wishes to impart is beneficial; I disagree, however, that the category is necessary to do that. The userbox or a note on his or her user page is necessary; those will remain unaffected. --Iamunknown 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Since none of the subcats are tagged, they won't be deleted as a result of this discussion. Part of why we tag pages is so that editors who may be interested in a discussion are notified of that discussion. I, or any other admin, I am sure, would be happy to relist this discussion, if someone would like to tag all the sub-cats for a group nom. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User ipa-N
This category, by its Babel convention, is nonsensical, since nobody can claim to be a "native speaker" of a universal phonetics guide. However, considering the other cats on orthography, a strong case can be made for merging this into the already-existing Category:User ipa-5, which identifies the user as being able to contribute at an advanced level. The userboxen associated with both have the similar verbiage ("This user has a complete understanding of IPA" for the -5 cat; "These users fully understand the IPA" for the -N cat). Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:User ipa-5, as nom. Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. I'm not even sure we need a 5-level, as that is reserved for a "professional" understanding. Also not sure these categories should even be in the babel system. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all to Category:User ipa. This is a language-related category, so using the babel naming convention would seem appropriate, though it only requires a single category and shouldn't be a "numbered" category. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User fr-ca and Category:User fr-qc
The two categories are duplicative, and only two users are listed in fr-ca, which, despite its more general categorization, specifically refers to Quebec French, not a general Canadian French, which could include Acadian French. Recommend merging Category:User fr-ca to Category:User fr-qc. (The question of whether we need fr-qc's six subcats is something that will be addressed in the future.) Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge as nom. Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both assuming there are no significant differences between this and French the rest of the world speaks, which I don't think there is. Merge if no consensus for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The fate of these should be ruled by any precedent existing regarding local variants of a given language, like say, American English and British English. These variants differ from idiomatic French by a similar scope, even though they are for the most part mutually intelligible. To answer VegaDark, there is at least as much if not more difference between either Canadian French or Quebec French and idiomatic French than there is between British (idiomatic English) and American English--Ramdrake 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we should even have "British English" and "American English" cats - they are both English, one category is good enough. It's rediculous to think someone would need to translate between the two, or any other regional dialect of English, which would be the purpose of the categories. The rule of thumb on these should be "Does the average speaker of language A need a translator to be able to understand a person speaking language B? If yes, then it deserves a category. If no, then it doesn't. Get rid of all these "Australian English", "Southern English", etc. categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- See the rationale which has been discussed below at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User en-us-ca and subcats. Some browsing through the ISO 639-3 data indicates that there are only 5 "recognized" variants of French (French, Cajun French, Picard, Walloon, and the extinct Zarphatic; no Quebecois, although it is noted as a dialect) and three of English (English, Scots, and Yinglish, which is by definition a secondary language). Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is written, not spoken, and while there may be notable differences between spoken American English and British English, the differences are relatively minor when using the more formal written form one is expected to use in Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there are many notable differences between different written forms of English. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Well there are two members of Category:User fr-ca. One uses Template:User fr-ca-1, and the other uses User:Laverick Phoenix/fr-ca. The former, then, is in the wrong category (which I'll fix in a moment), and the latter then becomes the only member of the category. How about we sidestep the possibly controversial debate, and just Delete, due to a single member, with no prejudice against it being recreated in the future if it gains 4 or more members? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Users that enjoy King of the Hill
"Users" instead of "Wikipedians", redundant to the correctly named Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill - enjoy > like and Users > Wikipedians - per current convention. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Merge to duplicate category, as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Albanian Wikipedians
Babel categories are supposed to be for languages, not stuff like this. Also redundant to Category:Albanian Wikipedians. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Albanian Wikipedians, per nom. (I wouldn't oppose renaming to Category:Wikipedians from Albania and reverse-merging Category:Wikipedians in Albania, instead.) - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Albanian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Albania. The "from" convention appears to be less common than "in", although I think that "from" is a better wording. In any case, we should end up with only one category. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- We've discussed the idea that eventually all the "...in location" categories should be renamed to "...from location", for various reasons. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User A.M.R. SL and Category:User A.M.R. KB
I'm not exactly sure what these categories are for, but the only pages in them are user subpages of User:A.M.R.. Does not look useful at all. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - More eponymous user categories. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete vanity cats. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Internet Slang Categories
- Category:User IntS
- Category:User IntS-1
- Category:User IntS-2
- Category:User IntS-3
- Category:User IntS-4
- Category:User IntS-5
"These users speak internet slang" - Don't need babel categories for this. There will never be a Wikipedia written in internet slang. Not useful. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- 'Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand internet slang. (Or, alternatively, "...who use...".) This is not a language. Even the article calls it jargon. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I think my feelings are clear on this topic. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User Katamari Fortissimo Damacy
"This user listens to Katamari Fortissimo Damacy" - Unsuitable babel category. Katamari Fortissimo Damacy is a soundtrack and not even a band, so even if this were named properly I don't think this would be a suitable category, due to members only being able to collaborate on a single article. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This could be renamed to match other cats under Category:Wikipedians who own albums? - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who support NPOV
Everyone should be in this category by default, as this is Wikipedia policy. Not useful as all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nom. This one's a no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good ol' All-Inclusive Delete - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Everybody should be in this one automatically. Remove category --Hdt83 Chat 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CG 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is sort of like a "duh" category. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who worked at WEGL
Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer
It's great these people survived cancer, but we don't need a category for it. Sets precedent for other "survived" categories such as "Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane", which I don't think we want. Can't see how this category helps build Wikipedia, a userbox seems sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete as per nomNeutral, as per Bladestorm's comment below. This one seems to be a bit more justifiable, but I don't want to see some of its potential progeny. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)- Keep - I think "survived" is besides the point. They've had cancer, and, I would presume, may have a bit of an interest, and may know a bit about it. In terms of collaboration possibilities, experiencing cancer is absolutely no different than experiencing a specific location or alma mater or a sport, or a video game or whatever. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: If we allow this, pretty soon we are going to have a whole bunch of disease categories... (Wikipedians with HIV, Tuberculoses, etc.) --Hdt83 Chat 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we already do. See Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition. Also, perhaps the answer is to figure out a name to merge this and Category:Wikipedians with Cancer, besides the generic "interested in"... ("Wikipedians who have had cancer", similar to the "from location" categories?) - jc37 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Standardize, keep for now - Yes, this one was strongly modeled after similar boxes for other user boxes like psychological conditions. Some of those are downright scary. Ok, I'm all for having a consistent policy but you cannot vote cancer survivors out without getting rid of all medical condition boxes. It may also lend to the credentials of some authors in editing related articles. Besides, let's look at some others like Wikipedians who have Poodles and other fluff. I'd pick cancer as more important than pets or speaking California English any time. Mikebar 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also the category meets 2 of the VegaDark principles for a good category: Categories relating to an editor's areas of expertise - Including occupation, education, skills, known languages, and experience. These categories are helpful because they show that the editor already has some "real life" knowledge on certain topics, and other editors may need that expertise to help them edit other articles on Wikipedia. Categories relating to interests that a user may want to edit, same reasoning. Mikebar 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Finally, you say just because you survive a disease it doesn't make you an expert. There is alot of expertise if you've come to learn a condition, as I have and have helped others so if the strong disagree look into it, it could be pruned to conditional "experts" but that may be as subjective as all expertise in the wikipedia editing realm. Done. Mikebar 10:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- The difference between this and the other categories is that this is for people who survived (and implies recovery) of a ailment, wheras the others are for a current condition. As for your other points, yes, this is a personal experience, but writing based on that experience would be original research. Also the stuff in my sandbox is just a copy of the current UCFD proposed guideline page, I haven't had time yet to modify it to what I think the guidelines should actually be. They may be more likely to collaborate on cancer-related articles, however, so I could see a rename. I don't like the "Survived" part of this mostly, for the reason I brought up in the nom statement - We could start seeing "survived" categories for anything- Car accidents, being shot, any number of the hundreds of diseases out there. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I support any logical change but consider this: if you 'have cancer then you are a survivor and if you are in remission (or "cured") you are also a survivor but a survivor does not "have" cancer (it's gone) so you'd be reducing the group for no good reason, hence the inclusive "survived" encompasses stricken and cured both and that builds the enclucivity such a category would want to embrace. Mikebar 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Finally, you say just because you survive a disease it doesn't make you an expert. There is alot of expertise if you've come to learn a condition, as I have and have helped others so if the strong disagree look into it, it could be pruned to conditional "experts" but that may be as subjective as all expertise in the wikipedia editing realm. Done. Mikebar 10:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There's strength in numbers, and if people want to come together like this, how does it damage the project? -N 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is just silly. How does it hurt the project? If you're worried about other possible future categories, rather than this actual one, then wait for those categories to show up and address them when the time comes. But arguements to the tune of, "well, this one isn't so bad, but one in the future might be, so let's delete this one" don't hold any water. Bladestorm 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That is a good point. Changed my vote above to Neutral. Horologium t-c 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. People who have survived cancer probably have researched about it, and have first hand experiences. I would say that it helps the project. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. How does this help the project? If you want a userbox, have at it. But a category isn't necessary for cancer survivors to be able to find each other and it doesn't ensure well-written or properly sourced articles. Addressing Category:Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane when it's created will be difficult to do when the Keep crowd points out that we kept Cancer survivors, so that sets a precedent. --Kbdank71 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- If that's the case, would you oppose some sort of rename, which would remove the word "survivor"? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who prefer Wikipedia over Citizendium
"I like X better than Y" categories are generally not useful. This isn't an exception. Sets precedent for any number of "prefer x over y" categories if kept. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Another no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content - since category names must follow the same restrictions as userboxes, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Naming conventions (Wikipedian sub-categories). - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment as creator -- Delete if you want. I dont much care. Underpopulated anyway. I am still allowed to keep Userbox though, yes? Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yup! No userboxen are deleted as a result of discussions on this page. --Iamunknown 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CG 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who are opposed to instant run-off voting
Category:User:CWSensation
Category:Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD
Another "prefer" category. Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD already exists, and we certainly don't need both categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, as per nom. Duplicate category. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Though I think that the target might be a suitable cantidate for deletion (or at least renaming - "who use"?) as well. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)- Merge redundant category. --Hdt83 Chat 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge but to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD. "Support" doesn't make as much sense. If nothing else, 'Support' is saying who you want to win in some battle. 'Prefer' is saying which you personally choose. The former is divisive. The latter is not. Bladestorm 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually "prefer" implies comparison, and can be considered "divisive" as well. - jc37 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if so, it's certainly far less divisive than to actively root for one side or the other. At the very least, support is external and preference is internal, no? If possible, I'd like every "Merge" vote to say which name they want to merge to. Bladestorm 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually "prefer" implies comparison, and can be considered "divisive" as well. - jc37 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD for the reasons stated by Blade. TJ Spyke 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think the target category is all that appropriate, I just thought the first category was a little worse - How about we merge both to Category:Wikipedians interested in HD DVD? VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- The current convention of Category:Wikipedians by technology and it's sub-cats (and sub-sub-cats) is "Wikipedians who use...". - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename/Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD. We'll have to nominate the other cat separately, or relist this discussion to include it, otherwise, just rename this one for now, until the other is nominated. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
June 14
Category:User el?
- Category:User el? translates as "This user does not understand Greek." This should have been nuked with all of the -0 Babel cats, but because of its nonstandard construction, apparently was missed. Delete as per precedent. Horologium t-c 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonsense babel category level. VegaDark (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "not" category. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm getting better at it Mikebar 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User en-us-ca and subcats.
- Category:User en-us-ca (Wikipedians who speak Californian English). Has six subcats, including one that is not formatted like the others. Do we really need this many cats/subcats for what is, at most, a regional dialect? The userbox is fine, but the Babel-style cats are more needless splintering. Recommend Delete All. I will see what we get for consensus here before submitting the next batch; the English language cats are a fine source of fussy categorizations and bizarre subcats. Horologium t-c 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I've been a proponent of deleting most of these regional dialect categories for a while now. The purpose of the babel category system is to find others who speak a language, you will never need to do this for something such as "Californian English". We should only keep dialect babel categories if the dialect is significantly different from the main language, enough so that seeking out someone who is familiar with that dialect would actually be worthwhile. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, keep. Helps me bond with other, like, people from my state on the project, man. -N 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is what {{User California}} is for. It sorts people who are in or from California for collaboration purposes, and it even has its own nifty little userbox, if that's your sort of thing. Babel categorization is unwieldy even without irrelevant categories; adding more is just throwing chaff in the radar. I have no problem with sorting by location (check my user page and you'll see that), but this is not, IMO, the appropriate way. YMMV. Horologium t-c 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all to Category:User en-us-ca. I don't think we need a babel breakdown for regional dialects, but I do think that a single cat for such dialects is "useful and appropriate". There's a difference between living in a location, and speaking the dialect. Ask any Scotsman who's moved to London : ) - And I will "Weak oppose" spelling out the cat name. It's a language (or at least a language dialect), so no reason to not use the babel formatting convention. - jc37 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- In what scenerio would a user actually seek out someone in this category for any purpose that would help the encyclopedia, that seeking out someone in any of the regular en categories wouldn't accomplish? VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- This speaks to the next round of deletions I was planning to propose. The Category: user en cat has a huge number of sub-cats that deal with regionalization, by country (Ireland and its two subcats, US and its six subcats, Canada and its four subcats, Australia and its eight subcats, Great Britain, which is tucked into EN-3), by parts of countries (California and its six subcats, New York and its recursive subcat, New England and its recursive subcat, Liverpool/Merseyside) and by other factors ("Lazy English" and its six subcats, "Mixed English"). For those keeping track, that is 51 subcats for one language, and nobody has yet created English language cats for India, New Zealand, South Africa, or any of the other former crown colonies, not to mention Scotland and Wales. All of these might make interesting userboxes, and a case can be made for country cat (one for each) for the nations, but the regional categories have no useful function; people are not going to search through the "I speak New England" category when looking for someone with whom to work on an article. I chose the California one because I (mistakenly) believed that it was not a particularly controversial category with which to start. Horologium t-c 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- In what scenerio would a user actually seek out someone in this category for any purpose that would help the encyclopedia, that seeking out someone in any of the regular en categories wouldn't accomplish? VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Totally fer sure Mikebar 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
June 13
Category:Wikipedians who visit countries
- Category:Wikipedians who visit countries - Well, I suppose it could be more vague (Category:Wikipedians who visit places), but not much. - jc37 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete along with the 4 subcategories. Millions of people have visited different countries, we don't really need to categorize this. "Wikipedians interested in country x" would be far more useful. I've visited Mexico and Canada, but I'm not interested in collaborating on those articles. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete vague category and non-defining subcategories. Doczilla 09:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per VegaDark. ElinorD (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. VegaDark nailed it. Horologium t-c 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Too broad a category. Lots of people visit countries. --Hdt83 Chat 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Moved here, as correct forum for discussion, from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 13#Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I have no opinion on the merits of the request. Bencherlite 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Template:Lc1 to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - This follows the renaming of, for example, the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article (as discussed here). The proposed name is both shorter and more precise. --rimshotstalk 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to match article name. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename as per Rimshots. Horologium t-c 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User rn
Category:User rn-N
- "This user is a native speaker of Random Babbling." - This should be self-explanatory : ) - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice and salt. Babbling, indeed. Horologium t-c 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious delete both - Amazed this got past me for so long. VegaDark (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt est laborum eu tempor eexercitation. –Pomte 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Phn'glui mglwnafth R'lyeh Delete fthagn wathgn.--7Kim 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete without the unnecessary babbling. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ðëlété рĕŕ ńơm.--WaltCip 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete How is babbling going to help out Wikipedia? We're going to look like fools if we go around babbling... --Hdt83 Chat 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
June 6
Category:Lennonist Wikipedians
Category:User Pages Cleanup
June 5
European Union categories
Speedy discussion moved from above: VegaDark (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:European Union Wikipedians & Category:Wikipedians from the European Union -> Category:Wikipedians in the European Union (per Category:Wikipedians by location and Category:Wikipedians in Europe convention) --Iamunknown 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)- Category:European Union Wikipedians contains people who support the EU ({{User:Hexagon1/EU}}), and they do not necessarily live in the EU. –Pomte 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see that User:Hexagon1/EU2 and User:Hexagon1/EU3 are similar. Then the original category name, "European Union Wikipedians", doesn't make much sense either. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (per the Category:Wikipedians interested in a region convention). I'll move this down to a nom now. --Iamunknown 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done, see #European Union categories. --Iamunknown 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see that User:Hexagon1/EU2 and User:Hexagon1/EU3 are similar. Then the original category name, "European Union Wikipedians", doesn't make much sense either. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (per the Category:Wikipedians interested in a region convention). I'll move this down to a nom now. --Iamunknown 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Category:European Union Wikipedians contains people who support the EU ({{User:Hexagon1/EU}}), and they do not necessarily live in the EU. –Pomte 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedians from the European Union → Category:Wikipedians in the European Union
- Category:European Union Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union
I listed these in the "speedy nominations" section earlier, but an editor pointed out that Category:European Union Wikipedians maintains a category for those who "support" the European Union. This is an inappropriate category, as it promotes diviseness (a category for those who "do not support" the European Union would also have to be created) and does not follow the "Wikipedians" naming convention. Thus I recommend moving it to Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union (c.f. Category:Wikipedians interested in a region), as both Wikipedians who support and do not support the European Union are, by default, interested in it. --Iamunknown 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename both as nom. --Iamunknown 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Category:European Union Wikipedians is already used in POV userboxes. It is useless to recreate it with a new name (and, presumably, migrate all the usages of it), when the same userboxes and the same users draw on it: it is the same POV grouping. Anyone interested in creating Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union is welcome to, but users who want to be categorized in it, and not the advocacy grouping, should move themselves of their own accord. Dmcdevit·t 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Wikipedians from the European Union and Category:Wikipedians in the European Union separate as they are (they're different things, a user may be from the EU but not be in the EU). Same for Category:European Union Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in the European Union, different things with perfectly clear meanings, no need to get them mixed up.--Húsönd 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly is the "clear meaning" surrounding Category:European Union Wikipedians? I for one don't know what the criteria for inclusion is: are citizens allowed? supporters? opposers? those with interest? --Iamunknown 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
June 4
Category:Anti T2 Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians who dispise the New York Yankees
June 3
Category:User AIM-Able
Cat description is "Understand AIM talk but don't like it anyway? You're at home here". We don't need a category for people who "understand AIM talk but don't like it". This is useless and also a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "not"-category. This seems to be a userbox that didn't need a category. - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, apparently it's a category that should have been a userbox : ) - jc37 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Horrific user cat. I'm not even sure why they would even create such a category. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - encourages grouping of dislike, should be a CSD if we ever had it.--WaltCip 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think the argument from negativity is weak; especially since the emphasis on not liking is both flippant and less than central. However, my devious and creative mind can concoct no plausible, farfetched, or even amusing argument for how this category enhances Wikipedia. :) --7Kim 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete utterly useless category that doesn't help improve WP in any way—arf! 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Vega has said everything that needed to be said ;-) «Snowolf How can I help?» 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Another userbox with an accompanying category that should never have been created. Horologium t-c 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:User 1337
Category:User 1337-1
Category:User 1337-2
Category:User 1337-3
Category:User 1337-4
Category:User 1337-5
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Marksmanship Ribbon
Would set precedent for a category for every award/medal given out by every country's army, which we definitely don't need. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom, or rename to something like Category:Wikipedian marksmen. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- If delete, these categories should be depopulated:
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Afghanistan Campaign Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Armed Forces Reserve Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Iraq Campaign Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Korea Defense Service Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Kosovo Campaign Medal
- Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: National Defense Service Medal
- These medals have one article each, which do not themselves list the notable recipients, and there are quite a lot more of them, so I think they are better merged into Category:Wikipedian military people or appropriately named new subcategories.
- Delete. I could seriously get behind a category called Category:Wikipedian decorated veterans, including a judicious number of subcategories for highly notable decorations, but not a category for every specific decoration. Even then, I would reject it if it focussed specifically on U.S. military veterans. --7Kim 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. I personally qualify for more than one of these, and some of these are not really awards, per se. Everyone who was in the US armed forces since 11 September 2001 received the NDSM and GWOT service medal (except for those who received the GWOT expeditionary medal), and several others are not difficult to get. Additionally, as pointed out above, it opens the door to a flood of other potential cats, from all countries. Better to keep the more general "served in the army/navy..." categories, and save the awards for userboxen. Horologium t-c 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians With MyCoke Points
Category:Wikipedians Who Had An Atari 2600
Category:Wikipedian Kids Next Door Operatives
Category:Wikipedians owned by Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers
Category name speaks for itself. No joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers (or "...who love..." which is the other pet variant naming convention, and matches the category's introduction). - jc37 11:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename Yeah, ok. † DBD 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per jc37. "Who love" is less exact than "who own" in this case. –Pomte 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. How useful is Category:Wikipedians who own Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers and must we then accept Category:Wikipedians who own $BREEDs for every value of $BREED down to and including Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen and Labradoodle? Even though I don't think we need Wikipedians by ownership of dog breed I'd let it go by, except that the category name points more clearly to a joke than to a serious attempt to categorise Wikipedians in this way. --7Kim 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - with this name, there should be no one in the category (well...hopefully ;)) G1ggy! Review me! 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - zero encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. MER-C 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per jc37, dogs are owned by people, it's only cats who can own people. DuncanHill 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rename although cute Mikebar 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)