Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/March 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | User | Archive
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Falcon (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 16 March 2008 (Mar. 3-9). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 2008 April 2008 >

Note: if the discussion that you are looking for is from this month, but is not on this page, it may still be at WP:UCFD.

March 9

Category:Wikipedians who play tennis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play tennis - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as tennis does not imply either an above-average knowledge of the sport or an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the game. The userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment; there is no need to generate a list of users who play the game. Also see the discussion for the related "basketball" category.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 7

Category:User enc-0

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User enc-0 - Template:Lc1

0-level category. All others have been deleted. All the other nonsensical "Cajun English" categories should be deleted as well, but I'll leave that for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who love Wikipe-tan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - apparently with creator's understanding. (As an aside, in this editor's opinion, while the usage of this category is indeed questionable, this doesn't even come close to the least useful category I've seen : ) - jc37 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who love Wikipe-tan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia". One of the least useful categories I have seen in a long time. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to comment as the author - I thought it is normal practice to do it this way - to create userbox and then category. Well, if there is problem with that, I can delete the category (and the category code in the userbox) manually. --Have a nice day. Running 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is normal practice to do both (because many userbox creators don't read the relevant guideline), but that's not the way it's supposed to be. Wikipedia's guidelines for userbox creation state (bold in original): Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default. Userbox creation is generally given much wider latitude than user category creation, and when new and non-functional categories are created, the whole UCFD process has to be spun up to remove something that should not have been created in the first place. Horologium (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play sudoku

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play sudoku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Tons of people have played sudoku at least once, and additionally just because someone plays sudoku does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Finally, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Just because someone "likes" Kakuro does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tons of people play or have played a fantasy sport at least once. Just because someone plays fantasy sports does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contribute to Fantasy sport. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who want a mogwai

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. krimpet✽ 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who want a mogwai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Absolute nonsense. Was tempted to speedy delete as such. Tons of precedent to delete, as categorizing wikipedians by desire does not contribute to the encyclopedia in the least. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There could be other Wikipedians who want a mogwai, and if we enable them to find each other, they could collaborate on articles pertaining to mogwais. I'm flabbergasted by this attempt to steamroll the mogwai initiative. For shame. (someone that doesn't like me should save this discussion in case I ever accept an RfA nomination). Equazcion •✗/C • 13:32, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 6

Category:Wikipedians from Worcester

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedians from Worcester to Category:Wikipedians in Worcester, Massachusetts - jc37 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians from Worcester to Category:Wikipedians in Worcester, Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently discussed and renamed to the present title; however, there was some confusion regarding its actual purpose due to an ambiguous userbox... so here we are again. The user page of the sole user in the category states that he is actually not from Worcester, but rather resides there. Also, since there is more than one place called Worcester, it's better to include the name of the US state in the category title. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  :Rename Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone to Category:Wikipedian mellophone players - While the name appears to be a logical presumption, in looking over the article, and its associated links, I didn't find a single example of "mellophonist". - jc37 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone to Category:Wikipedian mellophonists or Category:Wikipedian mellophone players
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. I am listing the nomination here, as opposed to the speedy nominations section, because I'm not certain whether "mellophonists" or "mellophone players" is more accurate. (Both terms receive an approximately equal number of hits in Google.) Black Falcon (Talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 5

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota - jc37 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota
Speedy rename to expand the postal abbreviation. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to dated section at 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I notice that Apple Valley, Minnesota has a population of less than 50,000, which has previously been a standard for deletion. I also notice, however, that this category has 6 users, which distinguishes this category from past cases. I would recommend renaming to Category:Wikipedians in Dakota County, Minnesota to increase the scope of the category to a reasonable size. If no consensus for that, I support renaming per nom. That being said, this should probably be moved to the dated section for further comment. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a population of ca. 45500, it's just slightly below the informal cutoff point. The metro population is listed as nearly 3 million but I doubt that's accurate (I've left a note on the article's talk page), considering that Minnesota has a total population of about 5 million. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That figure is indeed correct, as the metro area includes a big chunk of Minnesota and a portion of Wisconsin as well. The Twin Cities are not too far from the state border, so their suburbs spill over to the neighboring state. In fact, the most recent census bureau estimate for the metro area is almost 3.2 million. [1] I have a link to that spreadsheet—the most recent metro area population estimates—on my user page, in the "Links for editing" section, should you ever need to verify figures for any others. Horologium (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Humanist categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename both. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Secular Humanist Wikipedians to Category:Secular humanist Wikipedians
Category:Spiritual Humanist Wikipedians to Category:Religious humanist Wikipedians
Speedy rename to fix capitalisation and match the the title of the main articles: Secular humanism and Religious humanism. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts - jc37 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts

The inclusion of "approved" in this category title gives the illusion of some sort of approval process, which does not currently exist. The category description already explains that having an alternate account is ok if in compliance with WP:SOCK. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is that a valid reason to support deletion? There are admins out there who don't put themselves in the admin user category (some don't even have userpages). -- Ned Scott 04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me spell it out. "What use ..?" - None. "Do we need ..?" - No. "Does it help ..?" - No. "see no need .." - it does not help the Project. I thought that could be inferred from my "delete" comment. --Bduke (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus - The main consensus seems to be to close this in order to subsequently have a "broader" discussion. - jc37 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: As I understand it, this sort of category is not allowed, to prevent millions of unnecessary categories from being created. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in police work

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in police work to Category:Wikipedians interested in law enforcement - jc37 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in police work to Category:Wikipedians interested in law enforcement
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (law enforcement - a disambiguation page) and of WikiProject Law Enforcement. In addition, the scope of "law enforcement" is more defined and more universal than that of "police work", which can vary from country to country. That is, whereas the activity of law enforcement is essentially identical across the globe, the specific duties and powers of police agencies can and do vary significantly (for instance, compare the mandate of police agencies in Iceland or Denmark to those in Colombia and Iraq). Black Falcon (Talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 4

Category:Wikipedians interested in Achaemenid Empire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Achaemenid Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Achaemenid Empire
Speedy rename to add "the". Black Falcon (Talk) 02:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 3

Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete all without prejudice for (re-)creation of "interested in" versions. I have restored Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons for such usage as may be wanted/warranted. The result is "delete" rather than "merge", because the intent of the categories as indicated by the several populating userboxes is clearly "who play", without indication of being interested in collaborating on the topic. This is comparable to the recent closing of the CCG-related categories. - jc37 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating-

Users who simply play these games are probably not interested in contributing to the articles on those games. We already have WikiProjects for at least some of these, as well as an over-arching RPG one, so joining that is preferable to using these categories if you do want to contribute. If you wish to just state the fact you play the game(s), a userbox or comment is fine. At minimum the parent category should be depopulated of individual users as too broad for collaborative purposes, and they should be renamed as 'users interested in' to give some collaborative use, though some of the sub-categories are possibly too narrow anyway. In any case, as I've said, such categories would be redundant to our WikiProjects. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on". Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize which users have played particular games or not. Stuff like Dungeons and Dragons is probably a large enough topic to facilitate collaboration, but the current category is not named for that. I'd probably support keeping an "interested in" category for that though. As for the others, it looks like they are too narrow even for an "interested in" category. VegaDark (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so change all to "interested in", which is presumably the case. Not everyone has adopted the method of working in wikiProjects yet. I dont see why any of these should be too narrow.DGG (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What reason is there to presume that "play" = "interested in"? There are a whole host of activities that everyone does, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in collaborating on articles about those activities. I'm not insisting that this is the case with the categories involved in this nomination (I haven't yet taken a look at how they're populated), but I think a blanket presumption regarding interest is more likely to lead to miscategorisation than anything else. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are fine as they are. Why are all of these type categories being nominated for deletion just because they do not facilitate collaboration. Why are all of the community building categories being deleted. I don't want to have to go to the article, click Special:Whatlinkshere, then choose the User namespace, click OK, and then wait for it to show me every user page that is linked to that article just to find out who might play Dungeons and Dragons. I would rather have a category where I can find all of the other players of the game. Please, leave something that builds the community. - LA @ 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the burning desire to know who else in the Wikipedia community actually plays the game. Interest does not denote experience with the subject. A person who is "interested" may only be interested in making the articles about the subject poor by draining the energy from them or the interest is by tagging every article about the subject for deletion. There are people whose only interest in the subject is to destroy it. I wouldn't object to a category for the Wikipedians who think Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic. It would keep the players and the objectors seperate. My question is, why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution? I would like know which Wikipedians play Dungeons and Dragons, are in Maryland, use ICQ, and have webpages. As people have been telling me recently in their objections to a merge, Wikipedia is not paper. It is nice to know who I can talk to outside Wikipedia about certain subjects. Just because I am insterested in geology doesn't mean that I am going to edit those articles. I know almost nothing about the subject, I just like looking at the pretty rocks. - LA @ 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the third paragraph about me on my user page, you will see that playing Dungeons and Dragons has sparked my interest in many non-gaming fields. - LA @ 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise a number of points, but all essentially revolve around the question: "Why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution?" My short answer is that Wikipedia is not and should not become a directory of users grouped by every possible trivial characteristic. We should not maintain lists of people who support Hezbollah, miss Steve Irwin, don't own automobiles, like spicy food, enjoy soaking in Pepto-Bismol while wearing a sailor hat and clipping someone's toenails, or have any other characteristic that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. (By the way, the first four were actual categories and the latter is a reference to Rat Race -- a category for that particular fetish has, thankfully, not yet been created.) I think editors should be free to share with others as many of their habits, desires, and preferences as they like on their user page, but there is no reason for us to keep lists on the basis of these characteristics. For a more detailed explanation of my thoughts on the matter, please see this still-incomplete userspace page.
  • That said, my comment above applies to user categories generally and not necessarily to the categories included in this nomination. I am still neutral on most of these categories, as I'm trying to think of whether there is any plausible means by which they could faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my experience, nothing "builds the community" as much as successful collaboration on an article. It is actions and communications that build community, not an impersonal, automatically-generated directory of users. Enforcing the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of gamers or people by some other random personal detail unrelated to the encyclopedia does not undermine community-building. Thus, for me the only question is whether these categories facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, in light of the fact that "who play" does not imply "who are interested in collaborating on articles about" or "who can contribute non-OR encyclopedic content to articles about". Therefore,
Black Falcon (Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian moms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete - G4: recreation of material deleted per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian moms - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Orphaned and lonely, only one user The Helpful One (Review) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theist Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete - No prejudice against renomination (as in any "no consensus" closure) to discuss this for use as merely as a parent category. - jc37 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theist Wikipedians - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category has been nominated for deletion three times already, and I do not wish to restart a debate about whether these types of categories are inherently collaborative. However, I think that prior discussions failed to consider several key issues unique to this category, probably because the prior discussions were group nominations of Category:Wikipedians by religion or Category:Wikipedians by philosophy.
This category has a relatively vague scope, and it doesn't give us any especially useful information about the users it contains. It tells us that they believe in the existence of a deity or deities, but doesn't tell us which one(s). The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities. Moreover, this category is redundant to other existing categories, such as the specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians interested in theism, and does not make a unique contribution to the encyclopedia.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with this category. I personally believe in God, I don't adhere to any particular religion, and, at least in my country, believing in God is not something "almost everyone does". Stating that one believes in God and not mentioning any religion is a significant religious and philosophical statement in itself that users ought to be allowed to express on par with adherents of various religious and philosophical denominations. __meco (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to limit anyone's self-expression; however, userboxes and user page notices already serve the purpose of self-identification. What reason is there to maintain a directory of Wikipedians who are theists? Black Falcon (Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. On this one, I think that several of the assumptions made here are fundamentally wrong, and the demographics of Wikipedia need to be taken into account. While it is true that a sizable majority of people in the Americas, Northern Africa and the Arabian Subcontinent, and those on the Indian subcontinent are theistic, that is not so for much of Europe and Asia (where Atheism and Buddhism, respectively, are widespread). Further, the demographics here tend to skew towards non-theism; groups such as the Brights are severely over-represented in Wikipedia, and parody religions such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which are largely unknown outside the insular world of the internet) have a lot of interest here. I'd like to see the category turned into another organizational (parent-only) category, with no editors as direct members, but there should be a distinction between theistic and non-theistic beliefs. Horologium (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of our business how WPedians want to characterise their religion. it is perfectly possible that someone may want to characterise himself this way without meaning anything more specific, so I'd keep it a a real category, not just a parent one. DGG (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just as valid as Category:Christian Wikipedians in my mind. Might seem vague, but you could say the same thing about some people's beliefs. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/March_2008&oldid=198666341"