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

< August 2008	October 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.

September 20

Category:Suspected Wikipedia imposters

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. Wizardman 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia imposters

Even a quick look through Special:ListUsers should show how incredibly large this category has the potential of becoming. It is populated by: Template:Suspected impostor. - jc37 09:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With nearly 8 million registered user accounts, this category would indeed include a lot of names; with this many accounts, it is often impossible to know whether a particular user name is intended to mirror another user name or is just similar by coincidence. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why would anyone be searching for a suspect impostor anyways? - Icewedge (talk) 04:55, 23 September 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.

September 19

Racecar driver 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: delete all. Wizardman 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these categories are "Wikipedians by individual" categories, which have an extensive history of deletion here as being too specific for collaboration. A better category idea would be something like what we have with Category:Wikipedian Holden Racing Team fans, as with that type of category there could be more than just a single article to collaborate on (that category too, however, may be too narrow. I've decided not to nominate it with these as that is sufficiently dissimlar, though). Finally, being "fans" of something does not indicate any encylopdic interest in that subject, so the thought that such users could reasonably be expected to collaborate is suspect at best (I realize we have many other "fan" categories, and would support moving away from that naming convention). VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and prior precedent. - jc37 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all usercats for what amounts to a single article are not that useful. - Icewedge (talk) 02:50, 20 September 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:Danube-Swabian 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: delete. Wizardman 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article exists at Danube Swabians, so the category at least needs a rename to remove the dash. However, The article states that this "is a collective term for Germans who lived in the former Kingdom of Hungary", which is a nationality-ethnicity combination category that I don't think we need. Could set precedent to create any number of other Other nationality-ethnicity combo categories. This is somewhat unique because there is an article on the ethnicity-nationality combo, but still doesn't merit a category as a single article would be too narrow for collaboration. Somewhat similar precedent to delete here. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - an overly narrow self-identification category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. FWIW, the category still contains only a single user, despite being created over 32 months ago. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:50, 23 September 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:Finnish-American 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: delete. Wizardman 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combo category redundant to Category:Finnish Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians. Similar precedent to delete or double upmerge here and here. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or double upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - an overly narrow self-identification category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. FWIW, the category still contains only a single user, despite being created over 33 months ago. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:50, 23 September 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:Norwegian-American 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: delete. Wizardman 00:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combo category redundant to Category:Norwegian Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians. Similar precedent to delete or double upmerge here and here. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or double upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - an overly narrow self-identification category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. FWIW, the category still contains only a single user, despite being created over 33 months ago. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think Norwegian-Americans bring any different skills that could not be acquired by a search through either category:Norwegian Wikipedians or category:American Wikipedians, several similar precidents. - Icewedge (talk) 04:59, 23 September 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 listen to film scores

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. Wizardman 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who has ever watched a movie (that isn't deaf) has listened to a film score, so this category is all-inclusive. Further, it is hard to imagine anyone not enjoying at least some film scores. Far too broad to facilitate collaboration. Even if it were retitled to "Wikipedians by interest in a film score", an individual film score would be far too narrow for collaboration. Not sure if there is any collaborative value in a category for Wikipedians generally interested in film scores. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A cat which included those who appreciate (listen to/are interested in) film scores as a genre would seem to be appropriate, per Category:Wikipedians by music genre. But the category (and in particular the intent of the userbox) doesn't seem to clearly indicate this. No prejudice against creation of a more specific category. - jc37 02:46, 20 September 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 by alma mater: Choate Rosemary Hall

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/SNOW delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by high school" category, which have an extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 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:User hif-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/SNOW delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category, which have an extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 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.

September 12

Category:WikiProject Nintendo Award recipients

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. Kbdank71 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Nintendo Award recipients

Award recipient cats are consistantly deleted. See this list. - jc37 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - "award" categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration (see Wikipedia:User categories). If desired, the WikiProject (or task force?) could maintain a list of award recipients in a section of their project page or in a section of a subpage. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon, also per this precedent (also this one too). - Icewedge (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 19 September 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.

September 10

Category:Sandboxcategory1

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 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom per precedent. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — yarbles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we allready have category:X1. - Icewedge (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could an administrator please add mention of this test category at Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)? This is the template that appears in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:39, 11 September 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:User zh-wen

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: Merge all - jc37 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User zh-wen to Category:User Hani

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, this is a writing system category (see Classical Chinese) and so should follow the convention of Category:Wikipedians by writing system (which adheres to ISO 15924 standards) rather than Category:Wikipedians by language (which adheres to ISO 639-3 standards). The generic ISO 15924 code for Chinese writing systems is "Hani". – –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom, and as per precedents. Horologium (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, assuming his research on this being a writing system category is correct. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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:Prekmurian 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: Delete - jc37 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prekmurian Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a single-user ancestry category for Wikipedians of Hungarian Slovene ancestry populated by {{User ancestry-Prekmurski}}. In addition to the fact that there are numerous precedents (see 1, 2, 3, 4) for deletion of this type of category, this one has a particularly narrow scope. Overall, it is not apparent how grouping users on the basis of this characteristic "aid[s] in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".

Delete as nominator, or merge if an appropriate target can be found. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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:Trini 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: Rename Category:Trini Wikipedians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians - jc37 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trini Wikipedians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: "Trini" is a slang abbreviation of "Trinidadian" and so should be avoided in category names (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions). However, rather than merely renaming to avoid the abbreviation, I think we should expand the category to encompass the whole of Trinidad and Tobago instead of just the island of Trinidad.

Rename to Category:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians (to match Category:Trinidad and Tobago people). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Trinidadian or Tobagonian Wikipedians per the formal name for the people of that country (from the article on the country) and the fact that all the names of this cats parallel categories are in the form Category:Fooian Wikipedians not Category:Foo Wikipedians. For example, Category:Croatian Wikipedians. Deamon138 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to match the category for mainspace articles. Oppose directly above suggested rename, as that would differ from the category name already established for mainspace pages. If that one is ever changed, then I'd be open to changing it to a different standard, but not until then. I also oppose the "or" portion of that rename, as you can no longer be one or the other from my understanding. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the use of "or" makes the title applicable to the islands themselves (i.e. "Wikipedians from the island of Trinidad" and "Wikipedians from the island of Tobago"), whereas "and" makes it applicable to the country of Trinidad and Tobago (i.e. "Wikipedians from the country of Trinidad and Tobago". As you suggest, it is the latter we want, I think. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:55, 11 September 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 are citizens of TwoChairs

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 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are citizens of TwoChairs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow collaborative scope, given that there is presently no article on TwoChairs (it was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 and a userfied version currently exists at User:Cdhaptomos/TwoChairs) and the micronation has only 25 citizens. See Category:WikiProject Micronations participants for those users who are members of the WikiProject on micronations.

Delete as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no page means no need for a category, plus the population is far too small to support collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the micronation is a joke, more or less.[1] - Icewedge (talk) 05:04, 11 September 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:Venetian 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: Delete - jc37 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venetian Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is a rather narrowly-scoped ancestry category for Wikipedians of Venetian ancestry, referring either to those who descend from the Republic of Venice, the Italian region of Veneto, or both. In any case, it does not seem to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" (see Wikipedia:User categories).

Merge to Category:Italian Wikipedians or delete to avoid the risk of miscategorisation. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge with Category:Wikipedians in Veneto? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or merge (2nd choice) to Category:Italian Wikipedians per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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:User fiu-vro

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. Kbdank71 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User fiu-vro - Template:Lc1

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User fiu-vro-1, Category:User fiu-vro-2, Category:User fiu-vro-4 and Category:User fiu-vro-N.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Võro, a regional dialect of Estonian. Võro is not an ISO-recognised language, and "fiu-vro" is a made-up combination: "fiu" is the generic ISO 639-2 code for Finno-Ugrian (other) languages and "vro" is not a valid ISO identifier. Seven of the eight users who appear in these categories already appear in the Estonian category (Category:User et). There is a fairly strong precedent (see here) for deleting regional dialect categories; the few discussions that did not result in a "delete" outcome were for national dialect categories. At minimum, the subcategories should be upmerged per precedent (see here, here, here, and here). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nominator, or at least upmerge the subcategories. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there is a Võro-language Wikipedia, participation in that project can/should be reflected through Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Võro Wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (first choice) or Upmerge all (second choice). See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User bat-smg for my rationale, which is essentially identical. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, upmerge if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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:User es-cl-N

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: UpMerge (which is a "delete" in this case, since all members of the subcat are already members of the parent). - jc37 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User es-cl-N to Category:User es-cl

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent (see 1, 2, 3, 4) to upmerge subcategories of categories for national varieties of a language into the main category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now, and will support deletion of the parent category when that group nom comes along. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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:User en-ms-N

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: Upmerge - jc37 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User en-ms-N to Category:User en-ms

Nominator's rationale: Aside from the fact that the membership of the two categories is virtually identical, there is consistent precedent (see 1, 2, 3, 4) to upmerge subcategories of categories for national varieties of English into the main category. While it may be worth considering deletion of Category:User en-ms itself, that is probably best done in the context of a group nomination of all user categories for national varieties of English –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge, as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now, and will support deletion of the parent category when that group nom comes along. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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:User bat-smg

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. Kbdank71 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User bat-smg - Template:Lc1

Category:User bat-smg-3 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is actually a recreation of a category deleted per UCfD 4 September 2007. Nonetheless, since a year has passed since the original discussion (which was well-publicised but didn't receive much participation), I thought that it might be better to bring the category here rather than to try to speedily delete it as a recreation.

The rationale for deletion remains mostly unchanged:

These categories are for speakers of Samogitian, a regional dialect of Lithuanian. Samogitian is not an ISO-recognised language, and "bat-smg" is a made-up combination: "bat" is the generic ISO 639-2 code for Baltic languages (other) and "smg" is the ISO 639-3 code for the Simbali language (in Papua New Guinea). All three users who appear in these categories already appear in the Lithuanian category (Category:User lt), so no merge is required.

There is a fairly strong precedent (see here) for deleting regional dialect categories; the few discussions that did not result in a "delete" outcome were for national dialect categories. At minimum, Category:User bat-smg-3 should be merged into its parent category, per precedents here, here, here, and here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nominator, or at least upmerge the subcategory. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there is a Samogitian-language Wikipedia, participation in that project can/should be reflected through Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Samogitian Wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose deletion I seem to have this in my watchlist, so I'll go ahead and add my opinion. Since the users seem to identify themselves as speaking the non-ISO-recognized dialect, I would suggest that merging to Lithuanian not be an option--and since the Wikipedia is, in fact, using bat-smg as the prefix, it should probably retain the same name (unless someone can think of a proper abbreviate alternative). Bastique ^demandez 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that this category would be helpful to collaboration on en.wikipedia? Also, you make a good argument for not merging to the Lithuanian category, but what about merging the subcategory into the parent? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what people use to be helpful for collaboration on the wiki, but it certainly doesn't hurt to be able to identify speakers of a certain dialect when discussing that dialect :) I definitely think merging the category into the parent is a very good idea, however, and would not oppose deleting bat-smg-3 Bastique ^demandez 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, thanks for clarifying. :) Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (first choice), Upmerge to Category:User bat-smg (second choice). I am pretty strongly opposed to any non-ISO recognized dialect (with almost 6,000 different languages identified and cataloged under the ISO 639-3 system, it hard to justify having more eccentric, local variations). Additionally, under the rules currently in place for the creation of new versions of Wikipedia, bat-smg would not qualify, because ISO 639 recognition is a requirement. With that said, I am not totally opposed to the existence of this cat, since the bat-smg Wikipedia does exist, and it's not occupying a valid slot (such as als does). There is no justification for the babelization, however. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No language categories should be allowed unless that language is likely to get a Wikipedia of its own. Upmerging would be better than nothing, but I strongly favor deletion over that. I've been informed that a bat-smg Wikipedia exists (I was under the impression that regional dialects did not get their own Wikipedia). Since this is the case, I'm not sure what should be done. Abstian for now. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While a Samogitian Wikipedia exists (our article on it was redirected some months ago), with about 7500 articles, I'd like to suggest that a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias would be better suited to capturing participation in that Wikipedia than a language category. For example, I would have no objection to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Samogitian Wikipedia (incidentally, membership in such a category would imply some level of understanding of Samogitian). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is not always the case. I have contributions in the ca, oc, es, fr, it, nl, and pl wikipedias. I have rudimentary knowledge of only Spanish and French (less than fr-1 and es-1), and no knowledge of the others, but have created articles on several of them, and did little wiki-gnome things on the others. Remember Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2008#Category:User follyglot. Horologium (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I suppose. I had assumed that the "who contribute to" categories would be used only by those who make a lot of edits in another language Wikipedia, but then again there's no way to regulate that. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:58, 12 September 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:User ar-iq~~

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 all - jc37 19:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User ar-iq to Category:User acm
Category:User ar-iq-1 to Category:User acm-1

Category:User ar-iq-5 to Category:User acm-5

Category:User ar-iq-N to Category:User acm-N

Nominator's rationale: The ISO 639-3 code for Iraqi Arabic (also known as Mesopotamian Arabic) is "acm". The categories should be renamed to become consistent with other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by language, all of which follow the ISO 639-3 convention. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per ISO 639-3. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as nom, and as per extensive precedent. Horologium (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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.
~~September 9~~
~~Category:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series)~~

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, but there seems to be consensus that "who like" should not be used in the category name, so Rename Category:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series) to Category:Wikipedians who watch The Dead Zone (TV series). Feel free to group nominate the members of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series for further discussion. - jc37 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A category with no benefits at all. Cats with users who like something tend to be bad ideas. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does'nt this belong on WP:UCFD? And while we're at it, delete for having no benefit to the project. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes it certainly belongs at UCFD. That also makes your delete void, surely? I don't know if this should be kept or not, but the nominator is wrong when he says, "Cats with users who like something tend to be bad ideas." No, we have many of them, that's why we have the huge cat "Category:Wikipedians by interest", and have Userboxes too. Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 8. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series. - Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who watch The Dead Zone (TV series) per Wikipedia:User categories, which says, "If in the userbox content, the verb (see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content) is one of preference (enjoys, likes, loves, etc.), replace it with a more specific verb when selecting the category name. For example, "This user enjoys J. R. R. Tolkien" could be categorised as Category:Wikipedians who read J. R. R. Tolkien." Deamon138 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, you should lump everything in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series, to be renamed as Category:Wikipedians who watch TITLE. They are all named with "who like". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, 99% of them do. So I did a little bit of investigating, and came across Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. This seems to do the opposite of WP:User categories, which as I quoted above, wants us not to use "like" or "enjoy" in userboxes or categories, and instead use an more accurate verb like "watch" or "read". It seems that we should work out which advice we should follow. Does anyone know exactly why we can't use "like" in a category or userbox according to that guideline? If there's no good reason, then we should change the WP:User categories to reconcile itself with the other guideline. If there is a good reason, then we will need to change all those categories as Twas Now has pointed out, <sarcasm>which will be fantastic fun</sarcasm>. But I can't think of a good reason. Can anyone else? Deamon138 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, silly me, I didn't read the words closely enough. Wikipedia:User categories says, "If in the userbox content, the verb (see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content) is one of preference (enjoys, likes, loves, etc.), replace it with a more specific verb when selecting the category name." So we are allowed to have "like" in the userbox, but not in the category title. The guidelines don't contradict each other. However, my question still stands: why shouldn't we put "like" and so forth in the titles of user categories? Deamon138 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because people can have very many things they like, but only a few things they actually have time to do, read, watch, etc. This whittles out those people who tend to say "I like this and this and this and this and…" until every aspect of pop culture has been categorized. These people can't be expected to help with collaboration, because (in general) the more things someone enjoys, the less knowledge they might have about any specific thing. Also, those who actually read/watch/do/etc. are in a better position to know what the fark they are talking about. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be the reason. It seems acceptable to me anyway. Deamon138 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A category that lists people who like a show has no value what-so-ever. It's a "who likes this" type of thing. Now, if it were called Category:Wikipedians interested in The Dead Zone, that would be better. The word interest is better than like because it shows the general aspect of perspective editing of the topic. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point "interested in" is another good alternative (and one that should be included in the Category naming guideline). This makes complete sense because the parent category is Category:Wikipedians by interest in a fantasy TV series and you can follow that up three steps to Category:Wikipedians by interest (and each intermediate Catg has "interest" in it). So the precedent is there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the precedent is more for "watch" when compared to other things you can be interested in. It seems that most "mother categories" are called something like "Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre" while lower down when it is possible grammatically to be more specific without having umpteen words in the title, you get cats like "Category:Wikipedians who read science fiction". So to me, the precedent is "interest" at the higher levels, but when it gets down to a specific thing, use the most accurate verb, in this case "watch". Deamon138 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is NOT myspace or a social blog. We could have an infinite amount of cats that deal with personal likes. "Category:Wikipedians who like to pass gas", "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy cookies", or even "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy golfing on the moon." The possibilities are endless. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I am arguing against the terms "like" and "enjoy". I want to change the verb to "watch". Unless of course you want to delete this category completely? Well I have to say that this cat is different to the "categories" you use as analogies. The cookies one we can't do, because the "liking food" is not a viable category. The same with with "pass gas", and certainly with "golfing on the moon"! What makes something viable? If a category is seen to inspire collaboration. "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy cookies" is not good for that. And since there are millions of categories expressing what Wikipedians watch, read, etc, then I cannot support the delete of a single, lone one. If you want to delete ALL the TV categories, then that is a different matter. Go right ahead with a WP:UCFD, and we will see what the community thinks. But I cannot support the deletion of one category when there are millions that are the same and aren't up for deletion. Deamon138 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to see all these "who like" categories deleted. And while "who watch" is somewhat better, I don't think Wikipedia should have categories with that naming convention either. I have watched hundreds of different TV shows, even if only for a few seconds while flipping through channels, so if we want to get technical I could probably add myself to a ton of categories if we renamed these to "who watch". "Interested in" is probably a better standard, assuming we can come to a consensus that such categories wouldn't be too narrow to facilitate collaboration. As for this lone example though, I am hesitant to say delete unless the others are nominated as well, as to prevent a double standard. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 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.
~~September 7~~
~~Category:Wikipedian fantasy hockey players~~

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 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian fantasy hockey players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does not facilitate collaboration, no benefit to encyclipedia to categorize such users. Similar precedent to delete here. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. The only collaboration would be on "fantasy sports" articles, and perhaps some oddsmaking articles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the precedent, the only contributor to that UCfD was the nom; not exactly a ringing delete consensus by the community. - Icewedge (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) - Icewedge (talk) 03:38, 10 September 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 use Qui~~

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; I've read the instructions, they are very easy, and potentially all-inclusive (much like a gadget, even if this isn't one). In addition, since this doesn't capture users that use Qui but rather who has the userbox on their userpage, [2] serves as a handy reference. Kbdank71 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Qui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See User:TheDJ/Qui. Some sort of user status script, not useful to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as I checked other popular scripts or tools (twinkle,huggle, AWB) and none of them have there own wikipedians who use x category. - Icewedge (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know some of them used to have such a category, but they were deleted when the script became a gadget. I'll have to find the links for those old discussions. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this is one of the alternatives to StatusBot, when it got shut down. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why does it merit a category? Is the cat required for the functionality of the tool? - Icewedge (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there is no encyclopedic use for this category regardless of if it is a replacement for the StatusBot category or not. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking users who use certain Wikipedia tools don't have to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Because it is a replacement for StatusBot, tracking users who use this for feedback, testing, etc, are very good reasons to have such a user category. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a very good purpose for this, which is because the gadget provides for cross listing other users. It's one of its specific virtues asa tool. As I use it, I'm glad to know this exists. DGG (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this, and more specifically, this, and these. - jc37 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned above, the Twinkle case was deleted only because it became a gadget. The logic being that it was so easy to use and popular that it became "...potentially all-inclusive." The other cited uCfDs don't really cover usage by a tool, though there are some discussions for status. While related, the usage is totally different. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 13 September 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:User:Dendodge/Sandbox category~~

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 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dendodge/Sandbox category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This is a category I use for testing how categories work. I think policy allows these, as long as I don't place any articles in it - if I'm wrong, delete it and tell me" - Not sure if any speedy criteria applies or I would simply delete it. No other categories like this exist, all other similar ones have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The instructions for WP:SAND specifically encourage people to create a sandbox category of this sort. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? The closest thing I can find is "For a sandbox of your own, create a user subpage" - That is vastly different from creating a category-space user category. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean now. I didn't look closely enough to notice that this was in Category: space. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changed my mind. Thanks for your patience. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: As I've said, I don't mind this being deleted if policy (or consensus) says it should be - policy is policy. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a user category (per immense precedent). The fact that it is used for testing is not important and I cannot find any statement of the sort Stepheng3. - Icewedge (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAND says, "For a sandbox of your own, create a user subpage." That's exactly what Dendodge has done. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I didn't look closely enough to notice that this was in Category: space. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would those who support deletion recommend that users test category features? I ran into a similar issue with Category:X1 when I was in need of a category to use for temporary testing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, subcategories will still show up in redlinked categories, so for that functionality, at least, nothing even needs to be created. I have trouble discerning what type of testing would actually require one to create a test category. There isn't all that much that categories do, and honestly I can't think of a single reason any test category should ever be made (although since you have apparently created one, I must be overlooking something). For the rare occasions that one might be necessary for something, I guess someone can create one and then quickly tag it as G7 speedy after they are done with it, but I don't see why one would need to be left for an extended period of time. VegaDark (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that you can populate the category without actually creating the category page, but my general preference is that populated categories should be created, and then deleted when they aren't being used any more. I needed a sandbox category to test some bot code I was developing, which at the time required setting very strange sortkeys for categories. I didn't want to muck up the existing categories being used for their intended purpose, so I needed a junk category whose contents couldn't cause any problems. I do agree that user sandbox categories should be depopulated and deleted when they aren't being used any more. I left the category X1 because it seemed like someone might want to use it some other time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — User-centric user category/user test category, per precedent (e.g. Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Neither helpful, nor encyclopedic. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:56, 12 September 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 JoJo fans~~

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 00:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian JoJo fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Wikipedians by individual" or "Wikipedians by band" category, take your pick, both of which have extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 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 by alma mater: King's School, Chester~~

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 per precedent and author request (CSD G7). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: King's School, Chester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Wikipedians by high school" category equivelant. Extensive precedent to delete here. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A social networking tool with no benefit to the encyclopedia. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per precedent. I created the page, after following the redlink at the bottom of my user page (I created a userbox {{User KSC}}). Can anyone tell me how to get the userbox not to add people to this category? A.C. Norman (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:32, 9 September 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.
~~September 6~~
~~Category:WikiProject Nintendo members~~

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 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Nintendo members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now orphaned memberlist from a now-defunct WikiProject that has turned into a task force. The task force uses its separate page to keep track of its members. MuZemike (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo now redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo, so it isn't actually its own WikiProject, so doesn't merit its own categroy. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very least it needs a rename but I looked around and it seems that task forces don't generally have there own usercats. - Icewedge (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, under the assumption that task forces don't (commonly) get user categories. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Category:Nintendo Task Force members. Btw, has anyone notified the taskforce's members? Deamon138 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for speedy deletion as housekeeping, since the taskforcing was already discussed. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 9 September 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.
~~September 5~~
~~Category:Users who are Vael Victus~~

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. Wizardman 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are Vael Victus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At first glance, this would appear to be a single-page category. However, my recent communications with Vael Victus suggest that the intention is that there will be a group of Wikipedians associated with the name. Either way, this doesn't seem an appropriate use of Wikipedia. It's unclear who or what Vael Victus is and what the criteria for joining would be. I'm not sure how to address this except via Cfd-user. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a category for an un-notable internet meme; no benefit for collaboration. - Icewedge (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, since most of them probably are not Vael Victus, and anyway who is Vael Victus? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Icewedge said it best: no benefit for collaboration. Thanks, all. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 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.
~~September 3~~
~~Category:Wikipedian paratroopers~~

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 to Category:Wikipedian parachutists. Kbdank71 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian paratroopers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Similar to cyclists, below, this is presumably a single article cat. (And has only 2 members.) - jc37 07:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a single article category. See Category:Parachuting which is extremely well populated. Keep. There is scope for collaboration here. --Bduke (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a skydiver (parachutist?) and a paratrooper. I would not oppose the creation of a cat directly related to parachuting. As both skydiver and skydiving redirect to parachuting, something like Category:Wikipedian skydivers (or Category:Wikipedian parachutists, if that's more accurate). And then merge the paratrooper cat into the broader one. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename Category:Wikipedian skydivers; "paratrooper" is too limited in scope. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to just rename. All skydiving activities should be broad enough scope for collaboration. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename per Twas Now; paratroopers are military specific so if a civilian parachutist wanted to add himself to a category such as this he/she would have to create a parallel category which would serve no extra purpose. - Icewedge (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per jc37. Of the two titles offered above, I think Category:Wikipedian parachutists is the better one, simply because it matches Category:Parachuting. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hiding T 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian parachutists just to break the deadlock. Someone else will have to close it now though. Hiding T 11:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian parachutists per Black Falcon. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. - jc37 23:51, 12 September 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 cyclists~~

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, without prejudice of creating a more specific category per the discusion. Kbdank71 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian cyclists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a difference between being a cyclist (riding or driving a (bi-)cycle), and being someone interested in cycling-related topics, such as sports. See also these UCFDs for precedent. - jc37 07:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, please get your links correct. This is the second one I have corrected. You are confusing wikilinks and full URLs. Check them before you save the edit. I am unconvinced by the links you mention which are all concerned with cars, mainly individual makes of cars. Cycling has a wider scope: relaxation, sport, travel, etc. There is scope for collaboration here. --Bduke (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will be hard-pressed to find a single thing applied to cycling that isn't applied as well by car drivers. And that indeed includes relaxation, sport, travel, etc.

That aside, the main thing is that there is no actual "skill" involved that every person on the planet doesn't have easily. This is roughly equivalent to "Wikipedians who can use a drill". There is no expectation of much technical expertise. Merely that the person is able to go out for a ride on their "cycle". - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the Cycling article, anyone who has ever used a bicycle could qualify for this category, which is probably almost all of Wikipedia. A more focused category would be a better idea for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and VegaDark, but without prejudice to creating Category:Wikipedian professional cyclists (independent of the userboxes, of course). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple one-time event or skill is not likely to cause anyone to add this among their categories, but only those who have a particularly keen interest in cycling. While additional focus might help when this category's size reaches a certain limit, if you attempt to cut off this hydra's head, we'll end up with additional and less populated categories for tour cycling, fitness cycling, enjoyment cycling, race cycling, commute cycling, road cycling, cycling safety, mountain cycling, bicycle moto-cross, track cycling, etc., reducing the desired collaborative effect for the many areas these subcategories have in common. Finally, I see no specific alternatives suggested for this growing category. --Danorton (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hiding T 10:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is not a case of Category:Wikipedians by vehicle (the deleted category cited as precedent), but rather Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports. This category falls in line with Category:Wikipedian runners, Category:Wikipedian sailors, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could prove that that was all this category included, I'd agree with you. However, that's not indicated whatsoever. See the discussion above. At this point, if one wanted to try for a Category:Wikipedian sports cyclists (or whatever it should be called) that should be fine. But the current one is just too broad. - jc37 11:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cycling enthusiasts? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Enthusiasts" sounds very much like "who like". So likely the same problem. However, no prejudice against the creation of a more specific cat (such a one which is directly sports-related). That said, in either case, this category should be deleted. - jc37 23:51, 12 September 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:Slovak Republic 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: merge per nom to remove duplicate, with no prejudice against renominating this for deletion based upon the arguments questioning collaboration put forth by black falcon. Kbdank71 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Category:Wikipedians in Slovakia. I cannot understand how these are different or why both are necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to whatever consensus determined the current name of the country is, per convention. Note that the article is currently at Slovakia, which states: "Slovakia [[...] long form: Slovak Republic" - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom to match the article name, as per standard practice. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get confused with these. Isn't it possible some Slovak Republic Wikipedians are not in Slovakia, and some editors in Slovakia are not Slovak Republic Wikipedians? Hiding T 00:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Or further, that this could have been a question of nationalistic ferver? (Something also not uncommon in naming.) However, from everything I can tell, one is just a longer form of the other. This seems to merely be like "United States" and "United States of America". (I was thinking to use the example of "United Kingdom" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but then, there are those...) - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nationality category, not a location category. It is populated primarily by {{User Slovak Republic}}, which states "This user comes from Slovakia." Someone who is from Slovakia could be living in Anadyr, Urucurituba, or in a tent at the base of Mount Everest; moreover, s/he could be of Belgian, Canadian, Indonesian, or Zambian origin. All that this category tells us about the users in it is that they were either born or grew up within the boundaries of the Slovak Republic. I don't see how this type of grouping could facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, so I am currently leaning toward deleting this category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose deletion on those grounds, but I would like the members to be informed of the potential replacement options ("in" or "from"), presuming one of them applies. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and inform those in Category:Slovak Republic Wikipedians that they may want to remove themselves, if they were under the impression that the category was for "Wikipedians of Slovak descent" (but not necessarily living there now). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't oppose deletion, per the comments above, and if I had to pick between the two for a merge target, then I'd pick "Slovakia", based upon the article (among other things). - jc37 23:47, 12 September 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.
~~September 1~~
~~Category:Wikipedians in east London~~

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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians in east London to Category:Wikipedians in East London, England per East London, England. - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 01:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to align with article. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to distinguish from East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:27, 6 September 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 in southeast London~~

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 to Category:Wikipedians in South East London (which I find funny, as it was just speedily renamed the other way 'round in February, but whatever). Kbdank71 12:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in southeast London

South East London is a disambiguation page, indicating that it's merely the "eastern part of South London". And until the category introduction was changed by an editor in response to the discussion below, it showed "southeast London" as a pipe trick to Plumstead.[3] - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London. This is a bit more tricky. I don't think that every "Wikipedians in..." category has to map exactly to an existing detailed article about a place (as opposed to a disambiguation like the one you point out). What's wrong with slightly fuzzy classification? "South East London" is a very fuzzy classification, but a true one - you'd use it to describe a big crescent-shaped swathe of the city from Thamesmead in the east to Penge down south, or thereabouts, and extending to Deptford, Greenwich and Blackheath at its northern extent (the south side of the Thames). It's also distinct in London minds from Croydon, which would be why someone created Category:Wikipedians in Croydon - so you couldn't just roll it and that into one big "Wikipedians in South London", that wouldn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if a Category:Wikipedians in South West London appeared eventually, as well, for people in Richmond upon Thames, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 01:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in South London - at the moment, there are only two users in the category, so there's nothing wrong with broadening the category's scope. Alternatively, upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in London. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated, but map here. SE London is quite easily sorted by postcode. South London is a "potential" misnomer, since many people associate South London with "sarf of the river mate", whilst a number of SW postcodes are "norf the river John". I'm also unclear as to the nominator's rationale for deletion. As I read it there is no rationale, so I must be missing something. Hiding T 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is that "South East London" is not a well-defined location. South East London is a disambiguation page, and has several definitions that do not all agree. This category was also nominate about a month ago, which didn't come to anything. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was there. And like I just said, South East London is a well-defined location; see the map provided. That Wikipedia doesn't define something doesn't make it ill-defined, it just points to the flaws in Wikipedia. Maybe someone can explain the difference between the two definitions offered on the dab page. We have an article on South London, but that points out how badly that is defined too, with the river used as the boundary except where it isn't. South East London is far easier to delineate. You either have an SE postcode or you don't. And I really am interested in the rationale for deleting this. Because I don't get it. What's the fear? Hiding T 10:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the SE postcode area and the eastern part of South London coterminous? I think jc37 wants to avoid grey areas in categorization. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not coterminous, as reference to the article on South London should make clear. What grey areas are looking to be avoided? Because however you let people in London categorise themselves, there will be grey areas. The biggest one will be in proving they are where they say they are. For me, this is a null debate; there's no reason to delete. The utility of these categories tends to be that they allow us to find topic specific experts and people who may be able to get photographs. Now at what point are you going to start your search at this detailed level? And why aren't the people who know where they live the best people to set up the categories? Either delete all Wikipedians by location, accept there will be grey areas or agree on a standard schemata. East, South, West and North are just as flawed as SE, SW and so on, because they have great big grey areas. As I said in the previous debate, if you want a proper set up you have to do it by borough; they are legal, political boundaries beyond dispute. You can sub-categorise the boroughs by location if desired. But given the pitiful number of people categorised in this structure, it should just be left alone. There's no reason to enforce change except for changes sake, and that's wrong. Especially when you have someone who doesn't understand what is going on trying to tell people who do understand what is going on the right way of doing things. I would abstain from telling people in New York how to categorise themselves. I apologise if I am going overboard a little, but I'm having to make up rationales here because there isn't one presented. Show the harm. Hiding T 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to grey areas; I only suggested that jc37 might be. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I thought it was self-evident. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). No article, and as Hiding states, the name may be "complicated", which means in this case, the inclusion criteria may be as well. Obfuscation? Confusion? Not something that would seem to be appropriate for categories. - jc37 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, because I must seriously be misunderstanding you. Are you asserting that, because we do not have an article on South East London it means it therefore doesn't exist, or that it is hard to define? There is no obfuscation nor confusion here. There is only the fact that real life doesn't come easily boxed. I think maybe there is a short story in here somewhere, whereby things disappear from existence based on the existence or lack thereof of a Wikipedia article about them. We're sorry South East London, you have to be demolished, for Wikipedia has no article on you, only a disambig notice pointing to two separate articles on the same topic. I think there are a couple of flaws in this argument. For starters, in what way does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) apply? What is ambiguous about this name? What else does it conflict with, other than itself? We're supposed to be precise when needed. Show why it is needed. Show the confusion. What are you confused about? You don't know which Wikipedians are in SE London? Tough, you never will, because they could be lying. You don't know where in SE London they are? If you need to know, ask them. You don't know what part of London SE London applies to? So why are you here? If we're going to have Wikipedians in categories, the best people to decide what place they are in are the people there. Until consensus works out what these categories are for, and then works out whether this category is fit for that purpose, there's no harm here. There's no great principles involved here, it's just one person's opinion over another. South East London is real. I know, I've been there. I have a good guess where these people live, it's in a part of London that is in the South East corner. Heck, I don't cause trouble in Category:Wikipedians in Latin America. Why should I? If I need a Wikipedian with expertise on London, I go to Wikipedians in London. If it turns out, through that local knowledge, that I need people expert to SE London, I go there. This issue is starting from a false premise; that I will be able to identify exactly what type of expert I need to deal with my problem. That's a distorted viewpoint that doesn't equate to reality. There are many systems for finding help on Wikipedia. This category may be of use to some when looking for help; it therefore seems to be bad form to mess about with it based on a separate form of thinking. Show the harm. There is no confusion and there is no obfuscation that will not exist with any other structure. You know what the best thing to do here would be? A grand plan. Do we have one yet? Have we decided only to categorise at this level of urban population and no lower? Have we agreed the best way to categorise Wikipedians is by political subdivisions, and if so which? Have we had that central discussion, or written it up anywhere? Let's not do things by staging post, let's do it in the backwaters, let's do it on a grand scale, with the chance for all to be heard and with a proper consensus which matters. I guess at the minute I'm leaning towards Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London. If the issue is that there isn't an article on SE London, someone would be better placed starting it than deleting this category. Unless there is a reason Wikipedia should not have an article on SE London. Which I would suggest breaches every policy we have. The thing I find hilarious is that people are suggesting we rename this as Category:Wikipedians in South London. That shows a complete lack of understanding, since South London is far harder to define than SE London. Is it sarf of the river? Honestly, the best bet is to invite all London Wikipedians to a discussion to hammer out the best way to sub-divide. Personally, I think that is by London borough. But that needs to be a centralised discussion, not a ucfd, because you won't get the input you desire or need; whatever the outcome here it will be a very local consensus. (pun intended) Hiding T 10:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in South London or upmerge per Black Falcon. Do not rename to "South East London", as that is a disambiguation page, not an article. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, I support the proposal by BF and VD, above (leaning toward upmerge). - jc37 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London Do not convert to a South London category. Exact location identities in London are traditionally vague due to the numerous different boundaries, but there is a strong South East London identity - the likes of Bexley, Greenwich and Orpington have a very different identity from those of Sutton, Kingston and Richmond and the rest of South West London. Both entries on the disambiguation page are basically referring to the same concept under different boundaries, not different places. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London - confused why the discussion above seems to think that south east london isn't clearly defined. The south london article doesn't say so. It's true that in south west london, the situation is different, given the SW postcodes north of the river, but this isn't, to my knowledge, the case in the south east. The existence of the disambig page appears to be the problem - it's that that ought to be deleted. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:40, 15 September 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.