Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/November 2006: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:29, 25 November 2006

November 15

Category:Vandalized Users Pages

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted and salted by Kbdank71. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an incarnation of protected, deleted Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recreation of previously deleted content. —Cswrye 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It's a recreation that needs to be salted per WP:SALT.--WaltCip 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salted. --Kbdank71 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.. does that actually work for a category? Even if it's "protected" it will still list pages. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, there was a discussion about creating a bot that would remove articles from protected categories. I don't know if that ever happened though. —Cswrye 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it happened. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't salt. Salting categories is an exercise in futility. --tjstrf talk 04:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly a reasonable excuse. Don't do it because there's no point? I dread obfuscation.--WaltCip 11:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That used to be true, tjstrf, but it isn't currently futile. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't? Because you can definitely still stick things in salted categories... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt, if wanted. I wish "salting" caused such categories (and templates) to automatically show as a redlink, rather than blue. - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 14

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamieAdams

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY. — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted, but I don't think WP:DENY is a justifiable argument because it's a guideline. Anthony Rupert 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a user has an opinion, and has any written form of information to back it up, it's justifiable. Plus, the category wasn't created in good faith so that's more reason to delete it. Try to avoid WikiLawyering in obvious deletion categories such as these.--WaltCip 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to say it's not a guideline. By the way, what's WikiLawyering? Anthony Rupert 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I did not violate 3RR! I reverted exactly 3 times at the beginning of every 24 hour period!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and don't stuff beans up your nose.--WaltCip 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why does one person, a CONFIRMED SOCKPUPPET ABUSER no less, get a category just for them? This is just going to encourage sockpuppet abuse so people can get THEIR own categories, too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think delete is a good idea. This seems to be a part of a much larger system of vandal/sockpuppet watching: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. - jc37 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I didn't realize that. In that case, Keep, things should not be deleted piecewise. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonetheless, it's irrelevant information and we don't need a category to advertise this guy's puppetry.--WaltCip 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of larger system. If there's consensus that these informational categories fall under WP:DENY, then we can delete en masse at a later date. -- nae'blis 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency. --tjstrf talk 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well this is looking like it will turn out to be "no consensus"... - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nae'blis. I'm no fan of WP:DENY and I'm not at all certain any consensus exists for its promulgation as guideline, but I surely recognize that such consensus may emerge; at such emergence we will have, as Nae'blis well observes, to reconcile much of our present practice vis-à-vis vandals and sockpuppeteers with DENY qua guideline or policy, and so I imagine this to be a discussion we might later be obliged to revisit. In the meanwhile, though, the larger system serves some purpose and isn't categorically disfavored by the community. Joe 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 13

Category:User Oxford Spelling to Category:User en-oed

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to category:User en-oed. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fit with standard language subcategories. OED seems to be the standard abbreviation, per Oxford spelling. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Works for me.--Mike Selinker 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least pending clarification. I created the category. Amarkov, could you point me to where the standard language subcategories are listed? I am not sure whether en-oed or en-GB-oed would be more appropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They're listed under Category:User languages. And I picked oed over gb-oed because it doesn't seem to be so much a subset of British English as a different type. If you have an objection, I really don't know which one is right. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated right now. If someone comes up with a good reason to use a different abbreviation, I'm fine with that too, but it should change from its current name. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per discussion above. - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User piano-0 to category:User piano-1

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to category:User piano-1. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving up on converting the babel categories for instruments (see Nov 7), but regardless I don't think we need 0-level categories for instruments.--Mike Selinker 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think that this is the only instrument with a 0 category. I think that having four categories is fine, and the 0 just makes things inconsistent with other instrument categories. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found Template:User pit-0, though it's categorisation syntax needed work : )
'Merge - Though I laughed after reading the mittens comment in the userbox : ) - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP members

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was hippocratic rename (leave group 1 alone, move "members" in group 2, lowercase "Members" in group 3). --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This seems to settle the participants vs. members debate. This page seems to now accept both members and participants after "WikiProject (X)", and doesn't want Wikipedians in place of or in addition to either.--Mike Selinker 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories which only would change members to participants

Categories which could switch the group to the end

category:Members of WikiProject Ethiopia to category:WikiProject Ethiopia participants (became category:WikiProject Ethiopia members)
category:Members of WikiProject Pittsburgh to category:WikiProject Pittsburgh participants (became category:WikiProject Pittsburgh members)
category:Members of WikiProject Soviet Union to category:WikiProject Soviet Union participants (became category:WikiProject Soviet Union members)
category:Members of WikiProject The Elder Scrolls to category:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls participants (became category:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls members)
category:Members of WikiProject Utah to category:WikiProject Utah participants (became category:WikiProject Utah members)
category:Members of WikiProject Yemen to category:WikiProject Yemen participants (became category:WikiProject Yemen members)
category:Members of Wikiproject Comics to category:WikiProject Comics participants (became category:WikiProject Comics members)
Categories which need to lowercase Members and could switch to participants

These are the last WikiProject categories. I'd like people to pick between two options: (1) rename all to "participants", or (2) just make sure they all end in lowercase "members". I hope everyone will agree on one naming scheme, but if we have to have two, let's get them consistent.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support usage of participants. One "participates" in a project. One is a "member" of an organisation. - jc37 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Participants in WikiProject <x>" per what I said below. If no consensus is reached, please speedy rename all the capitalised Ms to lower case. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per jc37. Oppose "Participants in WikiProject <x>". Consistency is key here.--WaltCip 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG OPPOSE we went throught this in July courtesy of Lady Alena and consensus was to leave them as is. It does not matter one bit if they're participants or members and we shouldn't have this coming up a mere 4 months later. Projects should be free to name their own categories.Rlevse 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment for the prior discussion on the same topic, same cats, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#WikiProject_participants Rlevse 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support fixing stray caps, oppose forced changes from "members" to "participants". Each project should be free to use whichever term its members/participants/constituent particles/etc. prefer. Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they probably should be able to choose, too (members or participants), but I think we should encourage this as a better name :) -- Ned Scott 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced that it is a better name, for what it's worth; but CFD isn't really the best place to have a general debate on WikiProject semantics. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggest we comment on each talk page for these projects and see if they want to opt in or opt out, but (as I said above), don't make it sound like a dispute or something like that. Using participants is more welcoming and encourages not viewing WikiProjects as "clubs" (it's minor, I know, but it can leave a strong mental image). Plus,the consistency is an added bonus. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very good point. You remind me of how I felt when I first came to wikipedia and saw all the projects, campaigns, and so on. I thought that you had to "apply" to become a "member", similar to RfA (compare to online sites, such as yahoo groups, in which some are open memberships, and some are by approval only). It took some extensive reading (and lack of finding such a thing), as well as some rather inviting WIkiProjects before I realised that that wasn't true. - jc37 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose conversion to participants, Support changing all cats to use lowercase members: It is a unnecessary hassle to change all the templates to reflect this. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as nominated - I'm really not that concerned about exactly how we name these categories, but I do think that it would make them easier to find and use if there was a consistent naming convention. Sure, I know that we could change our minds later on, but I doubt that would happen if they are all named consistently. In fact, the best way to keep this discussion from coming up again is to rename them (the inconsistency is what is making them stand out, not the exact name used). Personally, I do like "participants" better than "members" for the reasons that Ned Scott mentioned above, but I would be willing to go with either one to reach consensus. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with a slight bias to rename. Except for "Categories which could switch the group to the end" where I think Rename. Doesn't that group really belong in the next section currently named "Participants in WPs"? See my more extended explanation in my comment in the next section. --David Göthberg 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are all wrong, policy and practise says "Wikipedians" instead of "members/participants". Se my comment in the next section. --David Göthberg 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. We already went through this before. Changing to this serves no purpose and is frankly anal-retentive. The potential disruption and change work isn't worth it at any rate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming them all to "participants", support making them all have members in lowercase.--Jersey Devil 11:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the renaming: it's up to the WikiProjects how they name there sections. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - leave the choice to the creators of those categories.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Participants in WPs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to "WikiProject (X) participants" (roughly 7-4 vote). --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple change here.--Mike Selinker 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Consistency, previous discussions, et al.--WaltCip 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we may also need to set up a special standard on categories created based on WikiProjects. We're getting this almost every week.--WaltCip 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one more set after this: the ones with "members" in their names. I'll nominate those when I get a chance, though there's no guarantee those folks will want their category names changed.--Mike Selinker 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. I like it as it is. The others should be renamed to fit in with these. Also there's a userbox thingy that automatically adds a category "Participants in WikiProject Whatever" to userpages. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: you're opposed to "WikiProject <x> participants", preferring "Participants in WikiProject <x>" ? - jc37 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, isn't that what I said? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but I do support the renaming of category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Science, but to category:Participants in WikiProject Science instead. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - for the sake of consistency. Lack of consistency bugged me when I set up our project's participant/member cat. -- Paleorthid 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It bugs me the other direction. Rlevse 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG OPPOSE we went throught this in July courtesy of Lady Alena and consensus was to leave them as is. It does not matter one bit if they're participants or members and we shouldn't have this coming up a mere 4 months later. Projects should be free to name their own categories. Rlevse 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it a big issue to change it? Wouldn't we still have to list it here if people in those WikiProjects (such as I) want to rename it on a per-project level? I doubt most people even care. For a "strong" oppose I don't see what you are so upset about. This is like the biggest non-issue of the year. I fail to see anything negatives about this renaming at all. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no point in opposing it if the change has no outstanding impact other than clarity and consistency. It's not a controversial topic. And 4 months is not "mere."--WaltCip 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes there is, we should not have to fight the same battle repeatedly, and your 'no outstanding impact' stmt is precisely why this should not have come up again. Rlevse 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment for the prior discussion on the same topic, same cats, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#WikiProject_participants Rlevse 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but WikiProjects can and should be able to be shaped by anyone, inside or outside the project. The project itself is usually a group only because not everyone wants to work on the same thing and/ or everything at once. Your original oppose seemed to be more about being hurt that no one asked the people in the WikiProject about the rename. Well, why would they? It's not a big deal, it's like asking someone if you can put a book back on their bookshelf when you see it on the ground. Ownership issues are not a good reason to oppose. WikiProjects are points of collaboration first and groups of editors second. If it was something more impactive then of course there would be a discussion first, but come on, this is ridiculous. -- Ned Scott 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for you category cabalists. Look in the mirror. You're right, you guys are being ridiculous. Not to mention you guys will want to change it to something else 4 months ago and all the projects will have to change templates, etc AGAIN. Rlevse 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus, here we come... @_@--WaltCip 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily here. We're 5-2 now in favor of renaming this set, but we'll see where we end up.--Mike Selinker 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Rlevse, no personal attacks, please.--WaltCip 01:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Ned first. Rlevse 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. ;-)

(In all seriousness, I don't really see why this set of renamings—unlike the one above—is generating such a fuss; they seem like fairly uncontroversial housekeeping even to someone as WikiProject-centric as myself.) Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. I hate those circular meta-discussions on trivial things; the last CFD ended as "no consensus" (due to "member"/"participant" dispute) and now we have the argument that, since it failed to reach consensus, all subsequent proposal must be dropped as well. (See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) ) Duja► 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (about the discussion above): Consensus can change. - jc37 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as nominated - I'm really not that concerned about exactly how we name these categories, but I do think that it would make them easier to find and use if there was a consistent naming convention. Sure, I know that we could change our minds later on, but I doubt that would happen if they are all named consistently. In fact, the best way to keep this discussion from coming up again is to rename them (the inconsistency is what is making them stand out, not the exact name used). Personally, I do like "X participants" better than "participants in X", and I don't like the idea of categories being at the mercy of userboxes (it should be the other way around). —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename sort of. I do prefer the naming "WikiProject Projectname participants/members" since I think that is the logic order of the words. Since "WikiProject" is kind of the name space and the participants list is a subpage of the project. And I do like lowercase (probably since I am Swedish, we use lowercase for almost everything). However, to me as a Swede "members" sounds better, is shorter, easier to pronounce and much easier to spell. But I agree that the meaning of "participating" is better since it to me means "taking part", while "being a member" kind of implies one have to apply for membership or something. So in the end I think I slightly prefer "WikiProject Projectname participants". But I oppose forcing it onto the projects since I think that the projects should decide about their own name space below their project name. I suggest just suggesting the new naming to them and offering help to move the category if you like to do that. However, I suggest being a bit harsher when it comes to naming like "Members of / Participants in WikiProject Projectname" since they should not put things in front of "WikiProject Projectname" but after it in "their own name space". --David Göthberg 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. If this rename doesn't go through then it would be good to go to each project and ask them if they have a preference. -- Ned Scott 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woha! I went and read the policy document in question and guess what I found? Only one of all the WikiProject user categories has correct naming according to the policy, namely category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Science. As I understand the policy and practice it could also be named category:WikiProject Science Wikipedians. I took a look at many other user categories and all I can find do use such naming. Also take a look here: Wikipedia:User categorization. So it seems the consistent thing to do is to use the word "Wikipedians" instead of "members/participants". In this new case I am not sure which ordering of the words I prefer. --David Göthberg 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that interpretation of the standard, since "WikiProject" already does the disambiguation (the reason behind the standard). However, that said, I think that this would be a nice compromise. If we go this route, I prefer "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject <x>", for clarity, and based on previous discussions. - jc37 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you are perhaps right that the important thing is that there is "Wiki(something)" in the names to disambiguate them from normal article space categories. And I still think that the names should begin with the "Wiki(something)" part. And I really like the word "participants" but I definitely think that "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject X" simply is too long. So perhaps this is a case where we should deviate from the practice that all user categories contains the word "Wikipedian(s)". Thus simply making it "WikiProject X participants"? Although "Wikipedians in WikiProject X" does look more like the other user categories so I think I slightly prefer that. Though this is a tough decision. --David Göthberg 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many nominations on this page that ensure that "Wikipedian" is in the name of a user category, and they have generally been supported. However, like all guidelines, exceptions can be made if there is a good reason for them. In particular, there has been resistance to changing the names of instrument and language categories since they have had such a long-standing tradition in the babel system. This is another case where I think that an exception could be made since the "Wiki-" prefix provides the self-reference needed to distinguish these as project categories rather than article categories. Personally, I could go either way as long as the names are consistent, but shorter category names tend to be easier to handle. —Cswrye 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Anal-retentive unnecessary change. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming anal-retentiveness is not an argument for opposing a change. WP:AGF.--WaltCip 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Renaming is up to the WikiProjects themself. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Again, I'm not sure if most projects will even care. This is more along the lines of typo correction than an important decision. Of note, I did leave a message on WikiProject Stargate about the renaming (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate#Category for WikiProject Stargate participants), which was about six days ago. No one has responded, objected, or anything. Like I said, it seems to be a minor matter that people generally don't have strong feelings about. -- Ned Scott 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 11

Category:Friendly Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, yet another category where it is against the rules for the category not to be applicable. Why do we have these? -Amarkov ^babble 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per arguments on Wikipedians encouraging civility and Angel Wikipedians. All-inclusive, non-encompassing.--WaltCip 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons on other UCfDs about such categories. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little hesitant about this direction, guys. I don't have a strong reason to oppose deletion, but I also don't think it's too terrible to indicate an attitude like this. I think we risk being viewed as cold and heartless when we take something away like this. But again, I won't oppose it, because it's certainly internally consistent logic.--Mike Selinker 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not terrible to indicate an attitude like this, so the userbox should stay. But a category that should be both all-inclusive and assumed is useless. The issue isn't expressing the sentiment, it's using a category for it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I just don't want to end up as the joykiller forum.--Mike Selinker 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category should be all-inclusive and has no collaborative value. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial. -- Paleorthid 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 11:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Angel Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have actual angels editing Wikipedia, and the category seems to be mostly for showing off the emoticon. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either you're using the "This user is an angel" box, which makes no sense, or you're using the other one, which, even ignoring its not being related to being an angel, is against the rules not to do. What else would you do, try to do the WRONG thing? -Amarkov ^babble 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the better connotation would have been Category:Angelic Wikipedians.--WaltCip 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's still a theoretically all-inclusive category, making it useless. -Amarkov ^babble 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Categories like this personally make me vomit.--WaltCip 22:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Gabriel isn't using it, so it's useless. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's obviously not literal, guys. We're talking about people who have dedicated themselves to doing the right thing and try to make the stays of others pleasant. Is it really hurting others to give people like that something? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being that the alternative is deliberately doing the wrong thing sometimes because you can't be bothered to do what's right and not trying to be pleasant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying we can't be kind, what we mean is that it's pointless to encourage kindness where kindness is already law.--WaltCip 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about any of that, but personally, I think a userbox/userpage comment is enough. What need is there for a category for this? - jc37 14:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered that there's a large gap between kindness and civility, and while we have a policy encouraging civility, only in cases where the contributor is not "established" does it seem to be enforcable. (i.e. see the Giano arbcom case) On the other hand, this allows people to commit themselves to go the extra mile and actively be kind to others. (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a category for that. Categories are not supposed to be all-inclusive. Everyone should be kind. The alternative is that everyone who is not in that category is not kind, and it doesn't work.--WaltCip 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A userbox is fine, but we don't need a category. --kingboyk 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know that the category name isn't meant to be taken literally, but it still doesn't serve any purpose as a user category. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - userbox is okay, but the user category is overkill and adds no value. -- nae'blis 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with bliss, box is fine, cat (as well as living wikipedians, 19XX births, 19XX deaths, etc) serve no useful purpose. Rlevse 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category will merely boost egotism. The userbox could be kept, but a list on this seems more like an "A-List".

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

category:Users currently away from Wikipedia to category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created yesterday. This is identical to this deletion.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm inactive from WikiPedia, I wouldn't have the time to put myself into this category. Still, merge per nom. If we start getting delete votes, I'll change my vote.--WaltCip 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "not currently active" category is an extremely useful category for administrators and other such folk. If I know someone isn't going to respond for a while, that changes whether I'm going to ask him for help, or ask someone else to.--Mike Selinker 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you use a category to discover that they were inactive? Wouldn't a wikibreak template be more likely? --kingboyk 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem there is that it requires you to know the name of the user and go to their user page. The category is helpful if you can't remember exactly how an editor's name is spelled (since you can look through the category until you find them) or if you're just trying to contact previous editors in general without looking for any specific person. —Cswrye 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - user page/talk page notification is enough. - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These are equivalent, no good reason for both. Also, I do sense that a cat for this does serve a purpose. -- Paleorthid 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Wikipedians who speak Runglish to category:User en-ru

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's "Russian English."--Mike Selinker 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:User en-ru to fit with Category:User en-au and the like, unless someone has a reason that's bad. -Amarkov ^babble 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another good suggestion. I amended the nomination as you suggest.--Mike Selinker 08:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:User en-ru per above. - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. That's fine. - crz crztalk 01:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per amended nomination. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~SUPER DUPER STRONG KEEP~~ Rename per amended nomination. - That little comment was just me expressing my disgust with "STRONG" actions with meager arguments. ;) --WaltCip 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Wikipedians who speak Dhivehi (Mahl) to category:User dv-mahl

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another language category outlier. There doesn't seem to be a different iso code for mahl, so it should use the dv category. Unless someone else knows better, of course.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:User dv-mahl, per such categories as Category:User en-us, Category:User en-gb, and Category:User en-us-ca. -Amarkov ^babble 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that makes sense. I amended the nomination. Thanks, Amarkov.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per amended nomination. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User writing systems to category:Wikipedians by writing system

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User languages to category:Wikipedians by language

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems identical to the "User instruments" category we merged into category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. The babel categories wouldn't necessarily change, though.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename, I guess. It's tough to maintain consistency when you have an unwieldly amount of categories.--WaltCip 22:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename per nom, and "Wikipedians by..." convention. - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom - This will eliminate a redundant level in the categorization system. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 10

Soccer redux

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I'd like to try again. Here we have two syntaxes where we only need one, as evidenced in the RC Strasbourg categories with only one member between them.--Mike Selinker 05:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Why did a lack of consensus whether to rename or delete, with NOBODY saying to keep the categories as they are, not default to rename? -Amarkov ^babble 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you asked, Amarkov. User:Kbdank71 and I have a gentleman's disagreement over how a discussion like that should end. KB says, essentially, if there's no agreement on a course, there's no consensus. I say, a nomination has two gates, the delete gate and the rename gate. If it it gets consensus on delete, it's deleted. If not, and the rest of the votes are for renaming, it gets renamed. The only way you get no consensus in my world is if the battle is between keep and either rename or delete (or both). But I'm probably in the minority of editors on this approach.--Mike Selinker 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as legitimate as categories who would categorize fans of American football teams. Rename per nomination.--WaltCip 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be a discussion on CfD that F.C./A.F.C. should be FC/AFC? - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename; by any reasonable "single tranferable vote" reading of the sentiments expressed at the original nom. Alai 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted as re-creation.--Mike Selinker 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted content. I say delete and salt the earth.--Mike Selinker 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one probably should have been speedied. Either way, let's delete and salt this baby.--WaltCip 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly speediable, which I shall now do, I'd rather not get Punic with this unless recreation gets truly persistent. (A 'deleted' bluelink might actually be less effective in getting people to take the hint than a category redlink, for one thing.) Alai 23:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you still categorize people into a salted category anyway? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You can categorise into a category for which there's no page at all, the only difference is the redlink. Salting actually makes that blue, but is "less subtle hint" not to make a category page than mere deletion. Part of the problem with recreation isn't so much persistence on the part of the original perp, as people 'patrolling' Special:Wanted categories, and (re)creating categories whether sensible or not. Alai 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User +25000 edits

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted and a new category has risen in its place.--Mike Selinker 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unreasonably irritated by this category I nominated before because of its lousy syntax. I don't care much about the category:Wikipedians by number of edits subcategories, but I hope we can all agree that this one can't stand. If someone wants to create a properly named category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits, they should go ahead, but this has to go.--Mike Selinker 05:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete and salt. If we start getting into Babel categorization of editing, this place will seem less like Wikipedia and more like USENET. We have barnstars for that sort of thing. Those who place effort into their edits will receive rewards if they deserve it.--WaltCip 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sped, but let's not salt unless we really have to, as above. Alai 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though agreeing that category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits could be created. Maybe we should just rename/merge? - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we just did. :^) --Mike Selinker 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 9

Category:User conlang

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--WaltCip 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User conlang → Category:Wikipedians interested in constructed languages

Just when I thought we were through with "User..." categories besides Babel... --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename.--Mike Selinker 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not a proper category.--WaltCip 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play PS2 games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

As with the below nomination, the result of the debate was rename to Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games.--WaltCip 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games. Joining with nomination below. Please make comments there.--Mike Selinker 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sony PlayStation 3 fans

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was rename and, as per the amended nomination, the category will be changed to Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games.--WaltCip 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian PlayStation 3 fans, or suggest another name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~Category:Wikipedians who like PlayStation 3~~ [[:Category:Wikipedians who play ~~PS3~~PlayStation 3 games]] (per below). "Wikipedian PlayStation 3 fans" seems awkward. -Amarkov ^babble 15:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games to match category:wikipedians who play PS2 games. Though how anybody plays PS3 games yet is beyond me.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ~~Category:Wikipedians who play PS3 games~~Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games per Mike Selinker. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also rename Category:Wikipedians who play PS2 games to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games. —Cswrye 04:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Just delete it. It's a waste of space, and it's the same as these other categories that have "WikiPedians who like Pizza Hut" or "WikiPedians who like iPods", etc.. Information not best presented through the category system.--WaltCip 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Though once this is done, I'd like to see a speedy rename which expands PS to PlayStation (or Play Station?) on the PS2 and PS3 categories. - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can do it here. I'm fine with "PlayStation 3 games." Anybody object?--Mike Selinker 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be the only sensible course of action that'll reach consensus.Support.--WaltCip 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 8

Category:Child Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Speedy keep. No reason given for deletion and previous CfD was only two months ago. As usually, only a certain category from Category:Wikipedians by generation is nominated. Prolog 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the related discussion linked above. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my pseudo-nom on the related discussion. Also, remember that the argument that all user age categories are bad is only suitable to a blanket nom for all user age categories. -Amarkov ^babble 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cyde and Amarkov you're way too paranoid! You know we aren't that stupid! Please! This should be kept.

Booksworm Talk to me!

Cyde, big question, if you contest this policy, why on earth would you have a userbox from this category? Booksworm

Keep per my arguments in the born in 1993 category discussion. Thryduulf 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CHILD specifically talks about Wikipedians who self-identify as being under 13. If we don't allow Wikipedians under the age of 13 to disclose their age at all (which is what this nomination seems to be going towards), there would be no point in WP:CHILD at all. That wouldn't make much sense, would it? --- RockMFR 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having them not disclose their age in the first place would be a far better cure wouldn't it?

Delete

Delete, see related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CHILD, which I support.--Mike Selinker 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you support it. You can't delete things per a PROPOSAL, because nobody is obligated to follow it. -Amarkov ^babble 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how proposals become policy. I can recommend deletion on any grounds that make sense to me. Nobody else has to agree with my rationales, of course.--Mike Selinker 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, you can recommend deletion for whatever you please. You can recommend deletion because your dog is black. That doesn't lend any credibility to your position. For that, you have to give GOOD arguments. -Amarkov ^babble 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is aware of your position, Amarkov.--Mike Selinker 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...? -Amarkov ^babble 02:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you the first time. In the 1993 argument below, I heard you the first through eleventh times. Please register your opinion and then let others do so without the attacks and constant challenges. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That might make sense were this a vote, but this is a debate. Thus, I'm going to continue to support my opinion, not just register it and then never respond to others. -Amarkov ^babble 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever works for you. But I suspect that comments like "For that, you have to give GOOD arguments" will not win you any converts on this forum. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" but this is a debate." - Semantically, I might suggest that it's "a discussion to determine consensus", but "debate" is accurate enough, I suppose (I've used both terms myself : ) - jc37 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too potentially harmful for subjects of the userbox. Powers ^T 01:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are potentially harmful. Not censoring Wikipedia is potentially harmful. That isn't grounds for deletion. -Amarkov ^babble 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please note my use of the word "too". Obviously, "this is potentially harmful" is not sufficient grounds—but that's not what I said. Powers ^T 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per concerns raised by others who "vote" delete. Also, not enyclopedic. And, yes, I'm happy for all agegroup categories to go if folks think is ageism. --kingboyk 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IANAL, and obviously would defer to whatever the applicable law is, but it would seem to me that this category might be useful as a compromise. Delete all the year specific age categories for those under 13, and substitute this category instead. However, despite my comments above for a possible compromise, my preference is to delete the category. (I'm not even sure about the usebox, in this case.) - jc37 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [merged my comments with my vote for clarity, since someone refactored the discussion.][reply]
Delete - WP:CHILD and 38-year-old child molesters could put the userbox in their user space.--WaltCip 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much like providing a buffet for paedophiles. Possibly recreate as Category:Wikipedians who are less than 21 years of age or Category:Wikipedians who are less than 30 years of age. (or 25)... As I understand it, one of the 'stans in Central Asia has 30 has the transition age... and 21 is drinking age in many places, 25's just a nice round number. Either way, we would not distinguish children readily, as college kids will also fit under these definitions. 132.205.44.128 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this category has all the wrong possible uses. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment: While WP:CHILD is only a proposal, the underlying law, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act is binding as the WP servers are in Florida. Jcam 04:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COPPA only applies to commercial sites which solicit information. This is neither. -Amarkov ^babble 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, we're not collecting information from minors. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing in WP:CHILD prohibits giving your age, does it? -Amarkov ^babble 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be useless, isn't it? We're just redoing the previous discussion. -Amarkov ^babble 04:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By logic, this argument can't have an agreement on keep or delete, or the results of the previous argument will be nullified and we'll have inconsistency.--WaltCip 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost makes me wish someone nominated all the user age categories and actually got them deleted. -Amarkov ^babble 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold!.--WaltCip 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't WANT them deleted. Thus "almost".-Amarkov ^babble 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Under-15 is a common amateur sports division (and U-18, U-20)... which could also be used as a dividing line. 132.205.44.128 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, instead of providing a buffet for pedophiles, we can provide a buffet for young adult-philes? What does that solve? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is obviously going to run smack-dab into no consensus zone again. No possible way we can reach a compromise, perhaps by consulting the WikiPedia staff?--WaltCip 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A compromise will happen at such time as WP:CHILD leaves proposal stage. And staff intervening will raise havoc, seeing as even the RfArb on whether or not it was rejected is opposed by people claiming too much intervention in policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, anyone under 18 (21 in some places) can be considered a child. (Radiant) 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 7

Instrument debabelization

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I think this ends our conversion of the Babel system. As of now, Babel should be reserved for languages, computer languages, and instrument proficiencies.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a trio of popular instruments to start this process, seeing if people agree with the plan. We have now merged all of the non-language babel categories except for the instruments. Like for cars, video games, aircraft, anime, and the others we've deleted, I believe that having babel categories for instruments has no encyclopedia construction purposes (that is, I can imagine wanting to know if a user played the sax, but not how well). We've also converted all "User (instrument)" categories to "Wikipedian (instrument)-ists" or "Wikipedian (instrument) players," so we have analogs for all these categories to feed into. Doing so will not increase the size of those categories, as the user instrument subcategory template (which will need changing) already puts, say, "User guitar-1" into "Wikipedian guitarists". Note that this plan will not delete any userboxes, just the separate categories. Let me know if you agree with this direction, and if it goes somewhere, I'll nominate the rest.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Like the language templates, proficiency is an important consideration when it comes to instruments. For example, I'm currently in Category:User piano-1, but without the important qualification of -1, I would feel obligated to remove myself entirely from the pianist category. This is similar to a person who knows some elementary amount of (say) German but would not want to be considered a German-speaker. Powers ^T 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:Instruments regarding this proposal. It was not an attempt at vote-stacking, just an attempt to notify interested editors. Any other suggestions for notification options would be appreciated. Powers ^T 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: There is a clear value to categorizing Wikipedian instrumentalists by proficiency, as this can be useful for finding users who are willing to make freely licensed recordings of musical pieces. I'm not sure we need such a high degree of precision, but having a user category for advanced and virtuoso players of individual instruments is useful; one for beginning and intermediate players would probably be useful too (as these folks are certainly a valuable resource for article editing even if they don't choose to provide recordings). Besides these two categories, I don't see a need for others, but I think it's clear that we should offer a facility for sorting instrumentalists by skill level. —ptk✰fgs 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would enthusiastically support this proposal. So "0" and "1" categories would go into "Wikipedian novice (instrument)-ists" and "2," "3", and "4" categories would go into "Wikipedian (instrument)-ists"? That works for me. I amended the proposal accordingly. (I'm also fine with "Wikipedian X-ists" and "wikipedian advanced X-ists".)--Mike Selinker 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a little coarse for my tastes. Four levels seems ideal to me. Powers ^T 01:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Technically the languages could be placed in such a system (WP novices; WPs; WP advanced;). I think the babel system exists, and has a long time of usage. If we want to discuss changing the babel system, fine, but I don't think we should do it in this way. Please let me know if you think I've missed something : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who encourage civility

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't they all do so? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's for categories like this that I wish that this page was transcluded onto the page that gets 10²³ times more viewers. Picaroon9288 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page for a query about that. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would presume that this category should include all Wikipedians : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate deleting categories like this, but everyone should be civil, and having a category like this doesn't really serve a purpose. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CIVIL speaks for itself.--WaltCip 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Astrology user templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes, found lurking in Category:CfD 2006-10. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. We should also rename category:Gender user templates, category:Sexuality user templates, and category:Sexual orientation user templates accordingly.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think ~~"-based"~~ "-themed" should probably be added after the keyword type. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: Rename to Category:Astrology-themed userboxes. I think "userbox" presumes Wikipedian usage. Otherwise it would be Astrology-themed Wikipedian templates. - jc37 00:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some others in that category are "(X) Wikipedian userboxes." We can nominate them all later.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 6

WP participants

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Category:WikiProject Germanic Mysticism contents are entirely mainspace articles, all of which are in category:Nazi mysticism, which I repurposed as a mainspace category. So the Germanic Mysticism category should be deleted as part of CFD, where I have moved it.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the complete list of WikiProject members, but it is the ones who don’t have the “WikiProject X” format. I’m not brave enough to nominate the ones who have no difference from the others except for having “Members” or “Participants in” or some other construction. But I figured we should attempt to agree that all such categories should have the correct name of the project in them. As always, please point out errors in the nominations and I will fix them.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as no big deal, but this has been raised recently and closed as "no consensus" or "no big deal". Most of the categories was created through userboxes so a move wouldn't be a big job. I'll be bold and move the Contract bridge category myself (scratched). Duja^► 13:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it should be category:WikiProject AfD closing participants to match the project. TimBentley (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I amended that nomination.--Mike Selinker 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support using participants (I think you can nom all the members ones, though I understand your hesitancy), and the general format above. (I haven't taken the time yet to go through them all for name specificity : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename and echo Jc37's comments. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 1

These all seem noncontroversial, and can close when the others do.--Mike Selinker 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are go for speedy ~~delete~~-er, rename.--WaltCip 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except I would prefer to be go for speedy rename.--Mike Selinker 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. :^) --Mike Selinker 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename : ) - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 2

Go for speedy rename.--WaltCip 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. -- Ned Scott 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP collaborators

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename except MOTD (to be followed up).--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These don’t have the formats listed above, so I’ve moved them out of the WikiProject section and into category:Wikipedians by collaboration, where they should match their brethren there.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the following suggestion: Category:User EU CotF member refers directly to Wikipedia:European Union collaboration. So perhaps rename to: category:Wikipedians who participate in the European Union collaboration? - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I amended that one, and added the other COTMs.--Mike Selinker 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added the BBAID, COTW and AID (again). COTW has been terminated, replaced by AID, so those categories should be merged into one that's named correctly.--Mike Selinker 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest that you withdraw Category:Users of MOTD for now. It was just deleted by CfD and recreated. I've asked the re-creator about it and am awaiting a response. - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Update the nomination when you figure out what should happen.--Mike Selinker 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming. I came to the MOTD category for an explanation of the cryptic letters. I hope that category gets renamed too. All these need to be changed, for even an above average Wikipedian :-)) doesn't understand it by the initials. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 01:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User template coder-n

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly tagged this one under CSD C1, but since it's been around for a while, and since it is very hard to be sure that it hasn't had a user for four days (a requirement of CSD C1) I've decided to nominate this the slow way. Picaroon9288 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, silly. Template coding categories are not supposed to be joke Babel categories. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although all of them are a bit silly, this seemed to be the most utterly useless one. Some of the others might be helpful in finding someone to assist you in designing a template, like 4 and 5, but those two make this one completely redundant. Picaroon9288 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as it is empty.--Mike Selinker 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, I considered db-g1, but decided against speedy deletion. However, my concerns with this meeting the criteria were minor, so you should feel free to tag the cat with {{db-catempty}} so as to speed things up. Picaroon9288 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speedy tag. This shouldn't be deleted while there is a template that uses it. The template should be nominated at TfD first and you can let the category follow by default. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox is humourous, and could be kept if made independent from the other template userboxes. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've deleted many categories and still left their templates and userboxes in place. The two are separate. So far no one here has opposed userboxes about food preferences or belief in one's own handsomeness, but we've killed their categories for being unuseful in building an encyclopedia. So speedy deletion may or may not be appropriate, but deleting the category and keeping the template (if that gets consensus) certainly is.--Mike Selinker 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Though I do think that the template could use some editing, it's would appear to actually be part of a babel system explaining the template markup programming ability of the user in question. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; it's part of a babel system explaining the template markup ability of its users. What I don't understand is how we need this one and Category:User template coder-5, which is why I nominated it for deletion. Could you clarify what purpose you think that this one serves? Picaroon9288 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts. The "5" level of the babel system is a new addition, and may or may not be appropriate for programming languages (no opinion atm). The "N" level is for native speakers of a language, and now that you bring it up, I think that all the "N" levels of programming languages should definitely be deleted (unless we have robots in our midst : ) - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's empty, and it's purpose isn't clear. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in burritology

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burritology is a neologism invented to annoy a teacher. This is, in essence, a "Wikipedians who eat..." category without those exact words. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the foundations of a WikiPedia rule - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.--WaltCip 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VegaDark 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gray, I don't think the word was invented to annoy a teacher. The Langmaker site isn't serious; see the disclaimer ("Please don't mistake this site for being an accurate dictionary; by design, it's not, but is rather a place to celebrate word coinings"). On the other hand, the word burritology has been in use for at least a decade, having been popularized by the original Burrito Page website in the article, "Landmark Texts of Burritology". This website (along with the term "burritology") was featured in Sunset, v196.n5 (May 1996): pp100(6). , Restaurant Business, 01/15/97, Vol. 96, Issue 2, Database Magazine; Apr/May97, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p33, 4p, 3bw, , and Texas Monthly; Oct97, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p144, 6p, 2c. According to KFOR 1240, the Burrito Page was "devoted to advancing the fledgling Science of Burritology -- an interdisciplinary practice combining Burrito Studies with Modern Astrology. By choosing from various fillings, cheeses, extras and salsas, you can gain valuable insights into your personality, life, past and future". More recently, it has been popularized by burritophile.com, which refers to John Roemer's 1993 essay "Cylindrical God" as the "base text for the then-emerging science of burritology." Other sites, such as burritoeater.com and sfburrito.com represent the major burritologists working in the field today. (Heh) Wikipedian burritologists are presently hard at work on four major research projects: Burrito, San Francisco burrito, List_of_burrito_fillings, and Timeline_of_the_burrito. As a category, "burritology" is as encyclopedic, as let's say, Wikipedians interested in psionics, which currently has 50 members. :-) —Viriditas | Talk 06:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Burritologist Wikipedians and categorize under Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle per above links. This is a documented lifestyle. —Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism in the making : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Keep; I think that my colleague Viriditas has made the case ably for the long-term endurance of the term "burritology" as used by other serious burrito scholars, so whether it is a neologism is probably a matter of debate. I do understand the hesitation to describe burritology as a formal field of study, although I think the case for burritology is actually considerably stronger than, say, astrology, given that burritology has a verifiable set of objects of studies and a verifiable set of outcomes, albeit also sometimes subjective ones. I am also not sure how I feel about describing burritology as a "lifestyle"; that is, people who are devoted to eating burritos are not always devoted to the analysis of burritos; so I would argue that burritology is in fact an analytical project undertaken, admittedly, mostly by people who practice the lifestyle of burritophilia. (This is not unusual in scholarly undertakings; for instance, most people who are anthropologists of dance also are dancers themselves in one form or another.) In my case I feel that my "lifestyle", if I have one, is as a burritophile (I'm kind of against the idea of having a lifestyle, but I will bow to the larger culture on this one) while my activity and identity is as a scholar. And since one of my fields of interest is the history, culture, politics and culinary development of the burrito, I consider myself to be in part a burrito scholar. If we are to rename the field from burritology, I would suggest "Burrito Studies", appreciating its necessarily interdisciplinary nature, and rename the category, "Wikipedians Interested in Burrito Studies"; or alternately, rename the category as "Wikipedian Burrito Scholars." Along these lines, I would like to commend my colleague Viriditas for the advancement of the description of this important field within Wikipedia. Joewright 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a neologism to me. Besides, there's no burritology article, so I don't think that this category would serve any practical purpose. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 4

Category:Wikipedians who use Flags of the World

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is misleading, since it's actually for wikipedians who contribute to FOTW, and should be named accordingly. I suggest renaming it to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World to reflect its actual usage. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main categories for discussion.--Mike Selinker 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have good televisual taste

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They do? Could we have a citation/reference of that? Oh wait, it's a category, so no refs, we better Listify.. But wait, we can't listify this into mainspace... etc. - jc37 09:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another "my preferences are better than your preferences" category. Delete.--Mike Selinker 15:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculously undefined. My televisual taste is perfect based on my- uh- own tastes, but it sucks from others' perspective. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obfuscation.--WaltCip 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too opinionated. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark 17:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flatulent Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TMI.--Mike Selinker 08:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everybody farts. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't care less.--WaltCip 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TMI. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Cochin

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Kochi, since Cochin is now Kochi. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Co-nominating Category:Wikipedians born in 1994 and Category:Wikipedians born in 1995. Actually, nominating is probably the wrong term, since I want them kept. They were previously deletedhere, but I feel that using WP:CHILD, not having close to consensual support, wasn't a reason to delete them. Given the rather low percentage in support of it, I suspect the issue was simply unequal representation. Thus, listing here. Amarkov ^babble 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add to the nomination as I do actually want them deleted, and was intending to relist them today. These categories were deleted in September (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6), recreated, speedied by me over the last few days, and recreated yet again. I would ask editors to cast their minds back to the cute1 4 u episode and the resulting debate about personal info of young people and protecting them on Wikipedia. I feel that there are two sides to the battle: reducing the amount of info young people reveal on wiki, and (relevant here) encouraging them not to reveal they are children in the first place. If we don't know that an editor is a child they are then indeed free to edit without discrimination. These categories actually hinder not help their "equal representation". Please note that these categories are fed by {{User current age}}; if we decide to delete the categories we ought to mandate that that template refuse to create categories for years of birth which could contain people 13 years or under. Of course if we keep the categories no further action is needed. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've seen it. What's your point? Did you even read the nomination? Prolog 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is pretty bad, seeing as that argument is pretty much why I did this... -Amarkov ^babble 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Wikipedians born in YEAR. Deleting only certain categories is age discrimination that also leads to internal inconsistency. WP:CHILD is not only a proposed policy, but unlikely to go through in the first place. Prolog 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is about the third time this has come up. At least so far, they always go away. And Prolog is entirely correct, it is most certainly age discrimination. But so are our voting, drinking, and truancy laws. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but that's not really what matters most. What matters is that "Delete, see WP:CHILD" is basing the decision on a policy that does not have anything remotely close to consensual support. -Amarkov ^babble 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, it's not fair. I'm not arguing its fair. I'm just saying it's probably not about to change. I could be wrong, we'll see. I sort of doubt it though, like I said, this has happened before. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was aware that it's come up before. We'll see. Now I'm going to add the standard "discussion, not ballot" template before we get flooded with people asked to come here. -Amarkov ^babble 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless all "Wikipedians born in YEAR" categories are deleted. There is no policy against revealing one's age even if one is under 13, and there is currently no consensus regarding whether WP:CHILD should prohibit stating one's age as 12 or younger or revealing certain types of personal information or take any of several other suggested options; this is what's keeping it from being made policy. CameoAppearance ^orate 00:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, removing them all would be fine. Like I said, I agree that it's not fair. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would people stop it with comparisons to the rest of the "Wikipedians born in YEAR" categories? If you want to debate that, make another CfD for them in general. Reasons should be given for why these should be kept/deleted, not just why they are on equal status with others. -Amarkov ^babble 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This has been copied from Categories for discussion, where I accidentally put it. This version has the text, so you can check it was copied correctly. -Amarkov ^babble 03:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm confused as to why you don't want the "Wikipedians born in YEAR" argument. It supports your position, that the categories in question are being unfairly deleted, based on interpretation of a not-yet-consensual policy. --RoninBK_ETC 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I personally can't see any hugely compelling reason to keep any of them, for adults too. If it comes down to keeping these because folks feel it's age discrimination otherwise, or deleting all of them, I'd opt for the latter. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This all-inclusive category shouldn't even be a category, since there are millions and millions of people who were born in 1993 who are either unable to, do not want to, or could not care less about posting in this category.--WaltCip 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of users under these age groups is a bad idea for many reasons. It is inviting trouble that Wikipedia does not need. Most importantly, it does nothing to help us write "great articles". So not a problem to delete. FloNight 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent please. Keep these categories until all "wikipedians by year of birth" cats are nominated for deletion (I would support deleting the lot of them since they're not particularly useful, but deleting an arbitrary subset is unfair). >Radiant< 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Please, if your argument is that no user age categories are useful, save it for a general CfD. That's not the point here. The problem is, we would get both the people citing WP:CHILD and the people saying that no user age categories are useful. That might very well tip the scales for deletion. However, when someone else nominates the rest of the categories, it might end up with no consensus. Then we have these categories deleted without the rest simply because they fail WP:CHILD, with nobody having actually debated whether or not failing that was a good reason for deletion. -Amarkov ^babble 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Wikipedians born in xxxx" categories, these included. It thoroughly escapes me how these could be useful. In addition, I find WP:CHILD persuasive and advocate deleting these under its reasoning as well. —ptk✰fgs 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's obvious that these arguments won't stop, I might as well respond to them. Here's how they can be useful. You know how you might go to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux to help on the Linux article? These work in the same way. If you need someone to help in a teenage/child/adult/senior related article, you can browse through the Wikipedians born whenever categories and see if you can find someone. -Amarkov ^babble 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh purleease... that's exactly the kind of discrimination you say you're aiming to avoid. How do you know a 14 year old isn't going to be interested in Val Doonican and a retired gent isn't an expert on the Teletubbies?! --kingboyk 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I actually supported deleting these categories earlier, but WP:CHILD is highly contested, and it shouldn't be considered a policy (or even a guideline) right now. Until we've reached consensus on this, I think that they should be allowed. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the under-13 categories and bar against recreation by modifying the templates. I don't mind the by-year categories for people whom I feel are old enough to make informed decisions about putting themselves at risk on the internet. But I think you have to make a judgement call to stop that at some age, and for me WP:CHILD suggests 13 is a good age for that.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to make a judgement call to stop that? AGE is not personally identifying information, and WP:CHILD doesn't prohibit people under 13 giving their ages, anyway. -Amarkov ^babble 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, Amarkov, but I disagree with it. I think informed decision-making ability starts about that age, and so I'm comfortable using this tool to help protect those I don't feel can make those decisions by themselves. This category creates a visible pool of people who fit that description, and that makes me less comfortable. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, I question why you, or anyone else here, has the right to judge what is necessary to protect people against their will. Their parents should have the power to decide how far to protect them, not people at User categories for discussion. On another note, this is turning into quite a little miniature version of WP:CHILD. -Amarkov ^babble 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have the right to create an environment which a parent might deem safe or unsafe. That involves lots of little decisions like this.--Mike Selinker 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The price of throwing out WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored seems too high just to prevent children from giving ages. It's not like we don't have young admins. -Amarkov ^babble 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a parent or anyone doesn't think Wikipedia is safe, then they don't have to spend time here; simple as that. If this category is deleted, then all the other 'Wikipedians born in' categories should be deleted as well. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical. Anthony Rupert 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then I'll nominate them for deletion posthaste after this consensus.--WaltCip 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, just don't use the fact that all of them should be deleted to get this subset deleted. Because if you do that, and then the others get kept, there is a problem. -Amarkov ^babble 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please explain to me what exactlly the big problem is that people have with this category? Sure, there are several people that have been born in 1993 that don't care about the category, but where's the rule that says that all users absolutely have to post in every category that pertains to them? Anthony Rupert 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILD. Some people just think it has good arguments and use them, and others don't understand the fact that it isn't policy, so "Delete because of WP:CHILD is not an argument by itself. -Amarkov ^babble 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus, then, isn't an argument over whether the category should be deleted, but if WP:CHILD stands as an effective guideline/policy.--WaltCip 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Thryduulf 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we should be facilitating the advertising of pre-teens' ages. Powers ^T 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because...? -Amarkov ^babble 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because.--WaltCip 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, good comeback. (sarcastic clapping)

But seriously, I don't see it as facilitating the advertising of preteens ages. As I said before, if any user on here doesn't want people to know his/her age, then they don't have to post it. Unless you're an autobiographer, I don't think any user on here posts every single thing about their personal life. Anthony Rupert 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, te be consistent with the other categories. Disclosure is totally voluntary, Wikipedia is not your parents and shouldn't feel obligated to act for them. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anthony Rupert. Wikipedia is not ageist. Wikipedia is also non-profit, and noncommercial, so I don't buy the COPPA argument. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - COPPA does not apply; Wikipedia is not censored; Wikipedia does not, and must not, have loco parentis; WP:CHILD is not policy, and (imho rightly) does not stand a cat in hell's chance of becomming policy; Wikipedia is not ageist; etc. Thryduulf 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This debate seems to be dragging on. Should we stamp no consensus or should we extend it for a few more days, or weeks (or months)?--WaltCip 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point in extending it, we'll reach a consensus no sooner than WP:CHILD will. -Amarkov ^babble 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close it soon as no consensus. I wonder if we should consider pointing the Wikimedia Foundation's corporate counsel to this discussion. Either they think they're covered by COPPA or not, and it doesn't really matter if we disagree.--Mike Selinker 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate isn't really about COPPA; very few think it actually applies. -Amarkov ^babble 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless, I'm closing it.--Mike Selinker 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 3

TV fans

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match all other categories of category:Wikipedians interested in television and category:Wikipedians by musician.--Mike Selinker 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the Stones category and it sounds good to me :-). - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per previous discussions : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who always wear socks

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a stretch to me.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem enencyclopedic and is unneeded. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Picaroon9288 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because some of us have been victims of the left-sock thievers : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--WaltCip 16:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They even wear socks in the shower? Delete. TimBentley (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What a bunch of nonsense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who dislike long sleeve shirts

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be the least heated dislike category we've seen.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem enencyclopedic and is unneeded. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Picaroon9288 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because (from A New Argentina) - "Argentinos, Argentinos, we are all shirtless now..." : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to make it like a MySpace category; I thought the category was acceptable simply because of the existence of categories like Wikipedians who always wear socks. Anthony Rupert 06:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic as can be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a laughable category.--WaltCip 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I don't think it's fair to call it a laughable category because I already explained that I thought it was okay to create it because a category like Wikipedians who always wear socks (which I didn't create, by the way) is already in existence. Anthony Rupert 11:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That category is also being deleted.--WaltCip 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anthony, I wouldn't take it as a personal indictment. Nobody's saying you were dumb to create it, just that it's not a good category to keep around, it turns out. You made a perfectly honest mistake; we all do it all the time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unencyclopedic. VegaDark 07:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amusing but useless. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Orange Julius

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the Culver's category below, and from the same user. Gots to go.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning down at the Category:Wikipedians who eat at Pizza Hut and Category:Wikipedians who eat at Culver's Frozen Custard entries. With all respect to Anthony, I just don't think these categories are a good idea. Picaroon9288 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no reason to use Wikipedian categories to advertise businesses. We're writing a neutral encyclopedia, not plugging consumer products. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote what I said below, there is a "possibility for subconscious advertisement." However, the creator seems to have been acting in good faith and without the intention of advertisement. Picaroon9288 00:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm certainly not making any claim about anybody's intentions. Whether subconscious or whatever, it's not ok for what are effectively ads to start appearing on WP user pages. I haven't begun to question anybody's good faith. I'm talking about actions, not intentions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 1

Category:Druidic True Neutral

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Druidic True Neutral Wikipedians, found it lurking. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. AFAIK Druidic true neutral (as opposed to "regular" true neutral) is not a facet of D&D 3.0 and later. (I've been playing, and have played, all the versions, since 1978 : ) - jc37 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As have I :^) Seriously, I don't think these kinda ridiculous but reasonably illuminating categories should be bounded by something as temporal as an edition of a game. If the alignment categories are reasonable, so's this one. But it should definitely deserves a rename to Category:Druidic True Neutral Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 00:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm suitably impressed : ) - (no sarcasm intended whatsoever) - As for the rest, I think they should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, otherwise, delete. (I think it's rather similar to the "Han shot first" discussion.) I was just noting that Druidic True neutral is idiosyncratic to AD&D. (3.0/3.5 D&D isn't AD&D, any more than AD&D is Basic/Expert/etc D&D.) - jc37 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd say it's not really possible to shoot Greedo, but it is possible to be good. So these pass the test with me.--Mike Selinker 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominated, unless it can make a will save against 17. —ptk✰fgs 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I think that the alignment categories are different from the "Han shot first" category in that it can refer to the personality of the person rather than his or her interests, much like the subcategories in Category:Wikipedians by Myers-Briggs type. For example, I listed myself as Lawful Good because I believe that reflects my personality, even though I've never played the game itself. That being said, I wouldn't be upset with a delete because I'm not sure if personality categories are all that important in terms of aiding the project. —Cswrye 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think all the comments above pretty much cement deletion : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adhering to a D&D 3.0+ standard represents a systemic bias. Pre-WotC versions of D&D have every right to be represented in Wikipedia as well. There is no reason that a Wikipedian should have to self-identify with an alignment that conforms to such an arbitrary standard. --RoninBK_ETC 08:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the discussion above, then I think you totally misunderstood it. Of course a user can place such a userbox on their userpage (I would presume). The question here is: a.) should such a category exist. and b.) what category would be most appropriate for said userbox if kept. My opinion on "a" is delete. But if kept, I suggest Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons be the category. It's more useful for collaboration, etc. However, whether a wikipedian feels that they are best represented by good, neutral, evil, or even a sign of the zodiac, is just not something we should categorise by. - jc37 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Note This is part of the Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment series, if a rename/merge is going to occur, it should be uniform. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kinky Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep--Mike Selinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another unencyclopaedic nonsense category.--Konst.able^Talk 13:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Read further into the category: it deals with an alternative lifestyle. Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in BDSM.--WaltCip 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename. If kept, keep current name. - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems as legit as any of the sexuality categories.--Mike Selinker 07:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User bss-X

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn: listed on WP:CFD/WU. TimBentley (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These 4 categories are subcategories of Category:User bss, the category for bass singers which is due to be merged into Category:Wikipedian singers, but say they are for bass guitar players. The appropriate categories are Category:User bass guitar-1 and similar. Thus these categories have no use. All empty by the way. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These can be speedied, as the "bss" scheme is going away. I put them in with the rest of the categories to be deleted.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That works. TimBentley (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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