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

< September 2008	November 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.

October 28

Category:WikiProject Malta members' Talk Pages

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. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to categorize user talk pages by which Wikiproject the users happen to belong to. Category:WikiProject Malta members already exists for those who wish to add themselves to that. Additionally, this category has improper capitalization. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; entirely redundant. Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 29 October 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:WikiProject Auckland 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: merge. Wizardman 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:WikiProject Auckland participants. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom, would slightly prefer participants over members. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 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:WikiProject Croatia 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: merge. Wizardman 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:WikiProject Croatia participants. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom, would slightly prefer participants over members. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 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:WikiProject Spain 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: merge. Wizardman 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:WikiProject Spain participants. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom, would slightly prefer participants over members. VegaDark (talk) 22:06, 28 October 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.

October 26

Category:Vincennes University 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: Speedy rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Vincennes University to conform to standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename already! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:06, 1 November 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:UK Sri Lankan 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. Kbdank71 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity/nationality combo (or alternatively a dual nationality) category. Lots of precedent to delete. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only 1 user in the category. The Helpful One ^Review 22:04, 28 October 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 WikiGoons

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 per G7 (author request). VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke category. Extensive precedent to delete similar categories here. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator - Might I point you not only to WP:ESPERANZA, which Jimbo himself has cited in cases where the slightly less serious aspects of Wikipedia has come into question, and also point out that it is no more of a 'joke' category than Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes or Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies, it's all just user categorisation. I might add that since you are such a primary contributor to UCFD, you might want to notify people when their categories are being discussed here. — neuro^(talk) 11:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your first point, that is a page in the Wikipedia namespace, which has had consensus to allow the occasional joke page. No such consensus exists for pages in the category space, and in fact if you look at the link I provided above you will see that nearly every joke category ever nominated has been deleted. As for this being "no more of a joke category than WikiGnomes and WikiFairies", let me point you to the discussion where we deleted a bunch of categories similar to these, specifically finding these two categories as possibly useful vs. the others that were not. You can see that here, where we kept those two but deleted Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons, Category:Wikipedian WikiElves, Category:Wikipedian WikiOgres, and Category:Wikipedian WikiZenMasters. We have also deleted Category:Wikipedian WikiSloths and Category:WikiOtters in separate discussions. To characterize this category, which is specifically tagged as humor as to be "no more of a joke category" than the two that were kept would be a gross miscategorization. The two categories that were kept actually group users who do things beneficial to the encyclopedia, and an argument can me made for them that grouping such users could provide a benefit (I personally disagree and would support deletion of these two, however the argument is much, much stronger for these than for the category at hand). Finally, notifying creators is not required, as presumably those interested in the category will have it on their watchlist (which looks have been proven correct in this case). Sometimes I do notify anyway, but my time on Wikipedia has been very limited lately as can be seen from my fairly sparse contributions. VegaDark (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just do it. This is not helping wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator - Go ahead, delete it then, I've got no objections. Tagging as user requested. — neuro^(talk) 15:34, 1 November 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 watch Smashtasm

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 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No article on Smashtasm, so can't possibly support collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also it's a single user category. The Helpful One ^Review 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt May Grow! Some People May Just Not Know About It Yet. The Word can be Spreaded, People!Some Guy (Izzy259) (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that "it may grow" is completely irrelevant. If that argument were valid then no category, user or otherwise, would be deleted because they "may" grow, regardless as to other reasons there are to delete. Additionally, even if this category had 10,000 users, it still couldn't support collaboration due to no article on the subject. VegaDark (talk) 16:25, 3 November 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 the Pitt-Penn State Game

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 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article category, so too narrow of a scope to support collaboration. If kept would set precedent to keep a category for every rivalry game. Additionally, this rivalry game isn't even active. If users wish to collaborate, they can use the article's talk page. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 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 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: Rename and depopulate. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming this category to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport and designating it a parent category (depopulating it of individual users). "Interested in sports" is far to broad to be helpful to categorize individual users in. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and depopulate of individual users as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and depopulate - per nominator. - jc37 20:11, 10 November 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:Politically Unaffiliated 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. Kbdank71 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political category, which have all been deleted. See here. Additionally, this can probably be considered a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single User Category. The Helpful One ^Review 22:08, 28 October 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.

October 22

Category:Mrchris

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. Kbdank71 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User category - containing only user subpages - of the type usually speedily deleted here. User was warned two days ago. Ian Cairns (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – per precedent. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added Category:Mrchris work in progress to this nomination, as that should also go. Speedy delete, by the way. Would have closed this myself but figued it would be better to let someone else after adding the second category to the nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 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:LUElinks 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. Kbdank71 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created on 2008-10-17. I don't see how this could possibly help the encyclopedia. Stepheng3 (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – do we still need to give explanations for why categories like this should be deleted? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless, improper naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 26 October 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.

October 18

Category:Wikipedians interested in social networking sites

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 but one of the creator's edits this year have been to either his user page, this category, or to add several mainspace articles and categories to this category. Recreation permissible if/when needed. At this time, though, it doesn't appear that it is. Kbdank71 17:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see the point of the category but in any case it is clearly unused. It was also floating in all sorts of mainspace categories (I just removed that) so presumably, it did get some publicity without attracting anyone other than the category's creator. Pichpich (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a lot of potential collaboration given how many articles can fall under this, and considering how the phenomenon has grown (almost like a virus....). It's lack of population is probably due to a lack of notice (even considering the main space articles that were in it by mistake). -- Ned Scott 04:58, 21 October 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 Mozilla

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 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Mozilla, "the word Mozilla is often used to refer to all Mozilla-based browsers. For example, when it is said that a website is usable by Mozilla browsers, it means that it is usable by Mozilla Suite, Firefox, Camino, Netscape 6, etc." So this isn't actually a web browser, but a term referring to several different web browsers. Categorizing Wikipedians by what web browser they use has questionable value already, but a broad category like this isn't useful at all where more specific categories exist. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mozilla is indeed a stand-alone browser. I used it up until I switched to Mozilla Firefox a few months ago. Deleting Mozilla as a browser, would be akin to deleting the category Wikipedians who use Windows, or Wikipedians who use Linux. They both are generic names for differing software (in this case OS's), and each have differing versions of themselves. So far as categorizing people by what software they use is helpful to those of us who use that particular software in finding, reporting, and fixing issues with that software, as well as helping to keep the Wikipedia articles up-to-date on that particular software. JLG 2701 19:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, we did delete the "Wikipedians who use Windows" and "Wikipedians who use Linux" categories, and in fact have deleted a many Wikipedians by software categories. Additionally, the article on Mozilla does not say anything about a stand alone browser. According to the article, "Only three things have ever formally used the term "Mozilla" alone: the codename for the Netscape Navigator software project, the official name of what was re-named Mozilla Application Suite, and the Mascot of Netscape." If that is correct, then the browser you used was not simply named "Mozilla", but would be under a different name. "So far as categorizing people by what software they use is helpful to those of us who use that particular software in finding, reporting, and fixing issues with that software..." - This isn't a legitimate Wikipedia goal, and thus doesn't warrant a category. "...as well as helping to keep the Wikipedia articles up-to-date on that particular software." - This is a legitimate Wikipedia goal, but there are already categories for each individual Mozilla-based brower users can add themselves to. VegaDark (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why I couldn't find them. Change my vote to Delete then. Wouldn't want to mess with precedents already set. JLG 2701 00:15, 19 October 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 cricket

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. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help collaboration to categorize who plays particular sports. Just because someone has played this before does not give them any special interest or ability to help collaborate on articles relating to this topic. Similar precedent here. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk)
Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in cricket; notify members. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Twas Now, it does have some value to collaboration but we don't need dual cats for what is more or less the same benefit. Icewedge (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merging would be inappropriate, since those who play, may not be "interested". And so to merge might miscategorise Wikipedians. - jc37 15:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said "notify members", so they can decide if they want to be removed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work in that quite often such members are inactive. - jc37 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to delete these and notify the members of the other cricket category (or, for racquetball and water polo, notify them they can create a category with the changed wording). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. --Kbdank71 17:10, 29 October 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 racquetball

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. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help collaboration to categorize who plays particular sports. I've played this before, and just because I have played it does not give me any special interest or ability to help collaborate on articles relating to this topic. Similar precedent here. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk)
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in racquetball; notify members. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Renaming would be inappropriate, since those who play, may not be "interested". And so to merge might miscategorise Wikipedians. - jc37 15:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said "notify members", so they can decide if they want to be removed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work in that quite often such members are inactive. - jc37 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. --Kbdank71 17:10, 29 October 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 water polo

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. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help collaboration to categorize who plays particular sports. I've played this before, and just because I have played it does not give me any special interest or ability to help collaborate on articles relating to this topic. Similar precedent here. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk)
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in water polo; notify members. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Renaming would be inappropriate, since those who play, may not be "interested". And so to merge might miscategorise Wikipedians. - jc37 15:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said "notify members", so they can decide if they want to be removed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work in that quite often such members are inactive. - jc37 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deja vu... –xeno (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. --Kbdank71 17:10, 29 October 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:Yellow Evan

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 –xeno (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individaul user category, which have an extensive histoy of deletion. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 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.

October 11

Category:User:Dylan620

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 deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual user category, which have an extensive history of deletion. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 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: Oak Hills High School

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 deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school alma mater cat, which have an extensive history of deletion. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 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: The Bush School

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 deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school alma mater cat, which have an extensive history of deletion. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 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: St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire)

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 deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school alma mater cat, which have an extensive history of deletion. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 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: The Southport School

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 deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High school alma mater cat, which have an extensive history of deletion. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 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:Users who urged User:68.39.174.238 to get a new account

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. –xeno (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper naming convention at best, absolutely useless at worst. Does not help Wikipedia to group these users. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Tatarian (talk) 17:35, 16 October 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 ride British motorcycles

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 per precedent. Simply riding motorcycles doesn't mean you're willing to collaborate on writing articles. Would recommend checking with the wikiproject to see if there is anyone interested in helping prior to creating any "interested in" category. Kbdank71 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is this supposed to be a joke? The category description says "...and contribute to the Wikiproject Motorcycling". Category:WikiProject Motorcycling members already exists. Similar precedent to delete here. Useless category. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give it time. I can understand why it may seem useless to someone in Florida but it's very important to me to do my best to sort out all the stubs and poorly researched articles on British motorcycles. I was hoping to link up with anyone out there who cares. The alternative category you suggest is the motorcycling project which is for anything on two (or three) wheels so far too general. Wikipedia is about collaborative working, so let's have a positive suggestion rather than just recommending to yourself that it is best to delete? Thruxton (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple issues with this category. First, the "ride" portion. Why on earth would it help Wikipedia to categorize users by what vehicles they ride on? Second, the "British" part. This category, if kept, would set precedent to keep a similar category for every nationality of motorcycle. There is no article on British motorcycles to make these particularly notable over other countries' motorcycles. Third, the "Motorcycles" portion of the category. Why motorcycles vs anything else? Cars, bikes, snowmobiles, water skis, atvs, what makes motorcycles more deserving than these other vehicles? There is nothing that particularly increases the chance of collaboration because this is for motorcycles, so basically keeping this category would create precedent to create thosands of combination categoris for nationality/vehicle categories (Wikipedians who ride mongolian snowmobiles, Wikipedians who ride Bolivian mopeds, Wikipedians who ride Trinidad and Tobagoian jet skis, etc.), and to top it off it wouldn't even be categorizing those who have an interest in them, it would simply categorize those who "ride" them. If you want to create a collaboration category, I would suggest a category with an "interested in" naming convention, and I would make sure that it isn't too narrow for collaboration (Category:Wikipedians interested in British motorcycles would be too narrow for collaboration IMO, and would fall victim to some of the same complaints I have above). VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Template:British motorcycle manufacturers, there are dozens of British motorcycle manufacturers. Only four are still around, but this category undoubtedly encompasses all of the defunct manufacturers. There may be potential here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:52, 16 October 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.

More racing 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. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First 3 are "Wikipedians by individual" categories, which have an extensive history of deletion here, and a near-identical precedent set recently here. The parent category is a support/oppose category, which have an extensive history of deletion here. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. Go ahead and delete them. I was just interested in knowing who on here followed those individuals, and that series. It would appear as though I am the only one who does. JLG 2701 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Some of these "categories who..." do aid in building an encyclopedia, but I don't see how these help. It sounds like the originator of the category agrees. Royal broil 20:29, 16 October 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.

October 4

Category:User:Elena85

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 deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-hum, another individual user cat. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this about a month ago, but I will repeat it: The sandbox category is Category:X1. Could an administrator please mention the test category Category:X1 at Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) under "See also"? (This template appears at the Wikipedia:Sandbox.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a mention of the category sandbox as requested. Hiding T 12:01, 7 October 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:Mrchris-County Kilkenny articles beta

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 deleted (as empty) by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Currently speedyable as C1, but I'd prefer a deletion here to bar recreation. Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 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 π

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 interested in pi. Kbdank71 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category. Does not benefit encyclopedia to categorize these users. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps rename Category:Pi seems to show that there is room for collaboration. - Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Icewedge. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does "liking" Pi suggest such users would be willing, interested, or more able to contribute to the articles in that category? VegaDark (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, but it's not like we can't start from scratch and leave a note for the people who were in it before. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename to become a collaboration category. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics. - jc37 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, it should be renamed Category:Wikipedians interested in π or Category:Wikipedians interested in pi (and should be categorized under Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename and collaborate, as per above. Jor dan ^Contribs 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Twas Now Category:Wikipedians interested in π would be a better name. I would just like to add the title is quite clever, their may be some American Pie fans who also feel aligned with this, hmmm. Lympathy ^Talk 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If renamed, I would strongly prefer "Pi" rather than "π", as that is where the article is located. VegaDark (talk) 15:09, 18 October 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 Special Pages

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. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category. Does not benefit encyclopedia to categorize these users. Note that if deleted, the parent category will be empty and hence, speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I imagine most people like special pages. - Icewedge (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new category like every other category. It has to grow like every other category. I have a userbox which will add your userpage to the category, so when the userbox goes around, the category will fill up. Wait a month, then if nothing happens to the category, reopen this discussion. Techman224 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note, this category isn't supposed to be used on articles, it's designed to be used on userpages, so it tells users, just like every other "Wikipedian's" category, it just hasn't gone around yet. Techman224 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the name change for this nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — doesn't facilitate collaboration. When would this be necessary? "I really need to find another user who likes Special Pages to help me out here." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next, Wikipedians who like Wikipedia? Hiding T 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless you can find a user you hates Special Pages. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:25, 9 October 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.

October 1

Category:Patriotic user templates

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: wrong venue. Kbdank71 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Patriotic user templates to either Category:Nationality user templates or Category:Location user templates

Nominator's rationale: The nominated category duplicates "Nationality user templates" and "Location user templates". There is currently only one userbox in the nominated category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. This isn't a user category. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Relisting at WP:CFD. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:51, 4 October 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.