Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:32, 21 January 2007 editXiner (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,585 edits →January 21: merge nom← Previous edit Revision as of 22:51, 21 January 2007 edit undoNight Gyr (talk | contribs)Administrators12,224 edits →[]Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 46: Line 46:
*'''Comment''' If this is kept, I suggest moving from ] to ]. POV may be debateable, but grammar is not! — <font face="papyrus">]]</font> 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC) *'''Comment''' If this is kept, I suggest moving from ] to ]. POV may be debateable, but grammar is not! — <font face="papyrus">]]</font> 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', another "not" category that's not useful for facilitating collaboration. Every Wikipedian is in this category by default. <span style="font-family:serif;">&mdash;]✰]</span> 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''', another "not" category that's not useful for facilitating collaboration. Every Wikipedian is in this category by default. <span style="font-family:serif;">&mdash;]✰]</span> 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', sexist. Sometimes ] ] a ] ]. Seriously, though, this feels like a soapbox for people to stand on and make them better than everyone not in it. ] (]/]) 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 22:51, 21 January 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Closing

For instructions on closing debates see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working/User.

Speedy

NEW NOMINATIONS

January 21

Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes

Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes into Category:Smoking Wikipedians

Category:Shroom Using Wikipedians and Category:Heroin Using Wikipedians

Already covered with Category:Drug-using Wikipedians. We don't need a different category for every drug, do we? I would say merge, but both these categories are empty except for the userbox. VegaDark 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians that reject violence against women

Come now. Does anybody support violence against women? Yet another category everybody should be in by default, so is not helpful to categorize users into this. VegaDark 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD

Nonsense, possibly even speedyable. VegaDark 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

January 20

Category:Non-Japanese Wikipedians who play Japan-only games to Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive computer and video games

This category is a problem because of its name. Why does it matter that the people that play Japan-only games are non-Japanese? I suggest renaming it as opposed to upmerging since we have a List of Japan exclusive computer and video games that can justify an expectation of collaboration from this category. VegaDark 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who challenge double standards

Another category that should include everyone. Also does not help the encyclopedia by categorizing editors into this because it doesn't facilitate collaboration in any way I can think of. VegaDark 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fans to Category:Wikipedians who like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Similar to previous "fans" discussions.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are Numberwang to Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang

Though for watchers of the show, these are apparently identical, for our category system they are not. So we should use our normal TV nomenclature.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

January 19

Category:PT Wikipedians

Merge Category:PT Wikipedians to Category:User pt. As far as I can tell it is a dupicate of Category:User pt. VegaDark 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete --Tone 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Read-Only Wikipedians

Delete, by logic. The people who belong in this category, won't add themselves to it. And once they do, they will no longer qualify. Therefore it is quite properly (and permanently) empty, and as such it should be be deleted. Fun idea though ... -- Prove It 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Category:Wikipedians who drink tea

Qualifies as a food category to me, which we have historically deleted. VegaDark 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians and Category:Smoking Wikipedians

I know this is a potentially controversial one since there are a lot of users in this category, but this is the very definition of a "not" category. We do no have an article about not smoking, so this can't facilitate collaboration. We have an article about smoking, so Category:Smoking Wikipedians could in theory be justified in that regard (although I would disagree that someone being a smoker makes them more qualified to collaborate on an article about smoking than someone who doesn't smoke, which keeping that category for that reason would imply) but I particularly think this category is useless.

I can foresee justifications for keeping this such as "people who identify themselves as non-smokers can contribute to the smoking article just as much as people who identify themselves as smokers" but if we used that logic then categorizing people in either category would be useless since everyone is either a smoker or a non-smoker. The bottom line here is that categories in Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle should somehow be beneficial to Misplaced Pages (i.e. facilitate collaboration or give editors useful information about how to deal with other editors on Misplaced Pages), and I don't feel this category does either.

I wouldn't be opposed to also deleting the smoking category, since as I said above, the notion that someone being a smoker would make them more qualified or more likely to be able to contribute to the smoking article than a non-smoker is a weak one. I'd also be open to merging the two into Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on smoking related topics but I know that wouldn't be in the spirit of these categories' creation. Even if this doesn't result in a delete consensus I still think it would be beneficial to discuss the ground rules of categories in Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. If this is kept, does it justify creation of Category:Non-drinking Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians who don't eat red meat? VegaDark 07:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderate keep. The logic above doesn't quite work for me. We have category:Vegetarian Wikipedians, which is a lifestyle choice. But it's also a "not" category, as it is defined by the absence of meat, not the addition of (say) tofu. I think as long as the category defines a very common, easily worded choice (in a way that "Non-chocolate-eating Wikipedians" would not), it might be OK.--Mike Selinker 08:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case though we have the Vegetarianism article, so the category can be used for collaboration. VegaDark 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And also the smoking ban article.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but that's just unfair. The reason there's no "no smoking" article is because of the Misplaced Pages avoidance of forks -- people who don't smoke contribute to the health hazards part of the "smoking" article. So your logic should dictate that we merge the two cats. And did the presence of the "heroin" article prevent you from nominating the user cat for deletion? (As you can see, I sometimes don't agree with your politics, VegaDark, but I admire your workrate and wish there were more Wikipedians like you. I think sometimes we need to say that.) Xiner (talk, email) 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Using that logic, however, would allow people to categorize themselves as people who don't like any article topic that has a "criticisms" section on it, because people that don't like the topic of the article could help collaborate on that section. And yes, I did say I would support merging the two into Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on smoking related topics. As for nominating the heroin category even though there is an article for it, I did think about that. But personally I think the entire drug-using Wikipedians category should be deleted, I don't think we need to go about admitting the illegal things we do on Misplaced Pages even if it means collaboration. I'll leave that discussion for another time though. Basically, my "politics" consists of me looking through all the categories and targeting all the ones that I don't believe help Misplaced Pages for deletion. As you can see many people seem to agree with me so I can't be too far out in left field. VegaDark 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages is not censored. I don't see why the smoking of one addictive and harmful substance is allowed when others aren't. Smoking can also be illegal. Xiner (talk, email) 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's absurd to nominate this category and not Category:Smoking Wikipedians. There is no difference between "not" categories and other categories, as it is just basic logic that any category as all may be delineated either by what lies within its boundary or what lies outside. Thus "vegetarians" can be thought of as people who do not eat meat, or as people who do eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. All this focus on "not" categories is logically spurious. — coelacan talk — 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We have historically deleted "not" categories as not facilitating collaboration. It doesn't benefit anyone to know the things we don't do, i.e. Category:Wikipedians not interested in something or Category:Wikipedians who don't do something because categorizing people by this is not helpful to Misplaced Pages. However, for things like Vegetarianism that can be looked at differently since, although a not category, in this case not doing something has an article so it can be used for collaboration. VegaDark 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm familiar with what you've historically deleted. I just think there's a bogus argument behind it. One can describe omnivorous people as "non-vegetarians" or "people who don't eat dirt" and these are just as valid descriptions. Every category of anything can be described from both the inside and outside of its boundary. Thus "non-smokers" are equally "people who prefer to breathe clean air". Every category has a equivalent "not" description, and vice versa. Thus you end up simply discriminating on the basis of common language. Because "non-smokers" do not have their own normative word that sums up "people who prefer to breathe clean air", they get their category taken away. But this is not about the logic inherent in the category, it's purely a side-effect of the quirks of common English usage. If there happened to be a normative word for clean-air-breathers, they would get to keep their category. But that hypothetical word is precisely equivalent to "non-smoker" from a logical standpoint. The enforcement of language quirks does not help Misplaced Pages either. I think it's merely a convenient excuse for zealous deletionism. — coelacan talk — 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "non-smoking", self-identification as a non-smoker is necessarily a "not" category, something which we universally remove. Coelacan's characterization of non-smokers as people who prefer clean air is just plain silly. It's not a quirk of the English language that the word we use for "people who do not smoke" is only available as a "non-" word. A "non-" word is the formation that precisely and accurately nails the sense for which it is intended! Supporters of clean air and conservation are an entirely different category and have no relation to non-smoking or smoking. —ptk✰fgs 16:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep or Delete both I thought only userboxes shouldn't say not. Could you point me to the rule for user categories? In any case, unlike vegetarians, who differ among themselves, smoking and non-smoking are two clearly defined groups that are but opposites of each other. If you delete this one, delete the other one too. The nominator says he'd be fine with deleting the smoking category, so I think it should be nominated for discussion too. Xiner (talk, email) 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I took the liberty of listing the smoking category for deletion, so we can discuss both at the same time, before too many other votes are cast. Personally, I don't think either categories help collaboration. Xiner (talk, email) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ptk, I knew somebody would deliberately mistconstrue my point. Language aside, you simply cannot deny that from a logical standpoint, every category can be defined either by what it encloses or what it excludes. "People who prefer to breathe clean air" is of course not a precise description of the category "non-smokers", and requiring such a precise description is irrelevent to the fact. This is simple. "A" is a category. "A" is equal to "not(not(A))". But "not(not(A))", by your use of language, is what you call a "not" category, and therefor subject to deletion. And "not(A)" can always be defined as "B", which is suddenly now not a "not" category. Logically, all categories, all delineations, may be described as categories or "not" categories. This cannot be used as an excuse for deletion, because it applies in all cases and is thus useless. Whether or not a language has a convenient "B" for any particular "not(A)" is irrelevent to the fact. Now Xiner has nominated smokers as well. But there is still no apparent argument for deletion here. These categories do not hurt Misplaced Pages, so there is no reason to get rid of them. — coelacan talk — 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that defining A as not(not(A)) is silly and artificial, and that no one would ever use language in such an inefficient way. "I do not smoke" is clear-cut. It's a categorization based on what one doesn't do or doesn't like, and we universally delete those. —ptk✰fgs 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it interesting that we may delete a food group but keep a drug group. Xiner (talk, email) 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    And I see no reasons for deleting food groups either. But I have a limited amount of energy to apply to these discussions. — coelacan talk — 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both. They do not assist in collaboration and thus do not assist in building an encyclopedia. We do not care or need to now about the lifestyle choices of Wikipedians. There are other user categories that should go also. --Bduke 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, serve no useful purpose in improving the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Request for clarification I asked this before but haven't gotten a response, so here I go again (sorry). Where is the rule that says "not" categories are to be deleted? I only find one for userboxes. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

January 17

category:Wikipedians who like Spices

Alternately, it could be renamed category:Wikipedians interested in spices, but it seems like a food category to me.--Mike Selinker 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in cooking for now, and suggest Category:Wikipedians interested in herbs and spices for future creators. Xiner (talk, email) 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in cooking. I'd consider the nom merge if the category wasn't so vague. It may be wise to notify the creator.--WaltCip 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gemologists

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 per creator.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to broaden the category a bit.--Mike Selinker 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need for redirection? Categories aren't usually redirected. Xiner (talk, email) 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If needed with any cleanup after merge - one category derives from a template transclusion (if I remember correctly. Ok with Speedy merge. SauliH 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 12

Category:Wikipedians crazy about Sourdough bread

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.--Mike Selinker 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians crazy about Sourdough bread (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Another food category. VegaDark 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who understand why Scepia is migrating userboxes

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.--Mike Selinker 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who understand why Scepia is migrating userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

January 11

Category:Wikipedians who think Misplaced Pages is starting to be too neutral

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. (A userbox may be created, but that's not one of the remedies in this forum.)--Mike Selinker 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who think Misplaced Pages is starting to be too neutral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Suggests a fundamental conflict with core policy, leading to a substantial likelyhood of being misused or becoming divisive. Does not appear likely to assist in collaboration. Serpent's Choice 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I also don't see the purpose for having this as a category. - jc37 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Too neutral? That doesn't even make sense. Neutrality doesn't have degrees, it is either neutral or it is not. VegaDark 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment See my comments by below. But also note incidentally that neutrality does have degrees- thus we will see something as strongly one POV or having a POV leaning slightly towards one direction. (Compare for example the sentences "X the vile, tyrannical dictator of Y" to "X the tyrannical dictator of Y" to "X the dictator of Y). JoshuaZ 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You can be closer to or further from neutral, but you can't be more neutral or less neutral. Per WaltCip, You can't be "more equal than others", just like you can't say "You are neutral, but I am more neutral than you". VegaDark 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per VegaDark. Xiner (talk, email) 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per the Animal Farm argument: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."--WaltCip 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Assuming this even made SENSE, which it does not (neutrality is an absolute, you can not have degrees of neutrality), declaring hostility towards a core policy is a baad idea. If it's meant to be a joke, it doesn't work. -Amarkov edits 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Is a valid opinion. First, there is nothing wrong with having a category of Wikipedians who don't like a core policy as long as they abide by it. Second, personally finding a philosophy or attitude non-sensical or incoherent is not an argument for deletion- I find inclusionism to be often borderline nonsense that doesn't mean I'm going to nominate the inclusionist category for deletion. Third, there are a variety of ways that this could be interpreted that would make some sense. For example, they may mean neutral not in the exact same way that NPOV actually calls for. For example, there are frequently problems on science articles about how much weight to give arguments and ideas from cranks or other non-mainstream notions. Frequently well-meaning users push for additional inclusion in the name of neutrality even though NPOV has an undue weight clause to handle such situations. In this sense, the users are attempting to be more neutral than the NPOV policy. Fourth, there are specific viewpoints which some respected editors have advocated that Misplaced Pages adopt. To use yet another related example- there have been many users who have argued that Misplaced Pages should have a "Scientific point of view" - while this would be strongly against current policy and will not change in the forseeable future, it is a legitimate opinion that Wikipedians should be allowed to self-identify as holding. JoshuaZ 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The inclusion of cranks in scientific topics would not make the article too neutral, but rather overweighted towards the unscientific. I've always found that people who find fault in the NPOV policy actually want to advocate for something -- they don't mean that Misplaced Pages is too neutral, but rather not inclusive enough of their idea. This is the same for those who want to reject a certain point of view. There's no reason to adopt a scientific POV, moreover, as science tries to be NPOV already. And again, these users have something to push, don't they? Xiner (talk, email) 15:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. We should wait and see what comes of this. — coelacan talk — 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Userboxify and Delete I don't think this is a legitimate category, but I feel some people might want to use such a userbox. TonyTheTiger 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If people want a userbox, they can make a userbox. But that's beyond this forum's scope.--Mike Selinker 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 10

Category:Martial Artist 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 Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists.--Mike Selinker 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get takers on this for the first half day on regular CFD. It may be more appropriate here. TonyTheTiger 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists
Category:Wikipedian martial artists into Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians
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.

January 9

Wikipedians by interest

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: keep.--Mike Selinker 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians by interest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete - First, if this has been discussed before, my apologies but I didn't see anything. Second, I realize that I'm supposed to tag all of the sub-cats as well but given the mess that resulted the last time I did a group nom I'm hoping we can simply take this as done so that we may avoid the comments like "keep this because I can't deal with group noms this big" and the like. So, OK, in looking through this cat and its various sub-cats, it strikes me that these are exactly the sorts of trivial categories that, were they applied to any group of people who weren't Wikipedians, would be deleted. It's unclear to me that there's any rationale for maintaining this sort of extensive categorization scheme to track trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • While I understand your wont to streamline the process, if the categories aren't tagged, then the categories can't be deleted per process. However, if you wish this to be a discussion regarding such things, I presume that's acceptable (I've done such myself : ) - Just realise that no category action will result of this nom, just suggested CfD action (which would then require tagging, etc.) - jc37 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that's perfectly fine. If there's consensus to delete then I'll go through and tag them. I just didn't want to bog the process down in tangents. Otto4711 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this could be a subcat of the pending Category:Wikipedians by category. It actually makes sense for subcatting, although a disclaimer should be posted about not having individual members. Xiner (talk, email) 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - While I agree that there are many trivial subcategories in this category, many of the categories provide an additional method of collaboration, which is the overall reason for having user categories. It provides a way to find individual editors who might have knowledge about a specific topic and might be interested in editing articles related to that topic. If there are any specific subcategories that need to be deleted, they should be handled separately. —Cswrye 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration interest and rename all subcategories to Wikipedians interested in collaborating on _____ related articles. We have been beating around the bush for too long by saying that someone being interested in a topic means they are willing to collaborate on the topic. If collaboration is the only justification for these categories existing, then let's just flat out say what these categories are intended for in their name. VegaDark 20:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are the most likely categories to provide ability to link up over the content they contain.--Mike Selinker 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The sub-categories are routinely kept at UCFD. As an explanation to the nominator, the purpose of these categories is to group editors by their interests as regards articles. If you believe that any given sub-category is useless, then please nominate it individually. --tjstrf talk 05:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I know what the categories are for. I would definitely support a renaming per VegaDark to make it clear that these are relating to being willing to collaborate on articles. That a particular person is "interested" in, say, psychology is trivia. That they are willing to collaborate on psychology articles is not. Otto4711 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (keep)I invoke the magic of WP:IAR and say that, while there may indeed be a difference, will anything be gained by changing the categories? Note that I reject the "categories must always be useful for collaboration" thing, so I'm not going to listen to arguments like "But you said that they're for collaboration!" I use that argument for overspecific categories, but that is a seperate issue.-Amarkov edits 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The benefit would be that users would add and remove themselves from the categories accordingly. I bet 90% of the users currently in these categories wouldn't actually be interested in collaborating on their associated articles, so these categories would be less helpful under their current names than if renamed. VegaDark 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Oppose Renaming - While collaboration is a major reason why user categories exist, it isn't the only reason. I think we should be careful of shifting bias in that direction (note that I said "we" : ) - jc37 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Then what are the other reasons? I can't think of any legitimate encyclopedic use of categorizing users based on their interests other than collaborative purposes. If people want to say they are interested in things, but are not willing to collaborate on them, then having them in a category would not be helpful to Misplaced Pages. They can restrict this info to their userpage if that is the case. VegaDark 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Snow per above arguments.--WaltCip 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Professing an interest in a topic does not necessarily mean that one is interested in collaborating on articles on that topic. I support VegaDark's proposed creation of a Category:Wikipedians by collaboration interest, but I don't think the existing category should be renamed. —Psychonaut 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Edwardian 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--Mike Selinker 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Edwardian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 7

Wikipedians who play The 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.--Mike Selinker 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who play The Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given that the article this category relates to has been deleted, and the deletion confirmed at this DRV, this category no longer seems to serve a collaborative purpose. The fact that there has been a substantial outside effort to influence Misplaced Pages into including this topic (see the AFD discussion inter alia) also suggests that this may not serve the best purposes of the project. Serpent's Choice 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That I know of, the article has been recreated out of process (and speedily deleted) at a minimum of 3 article-name variations over the last 48 hours... Serpent's Choice 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians born in XXXX into Wikipedians born in the XXX0s

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 (3K/3D/3M). Looking for someone to help remove the tags.--Mike Selinker 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I could list all ~80 of these, but I won't. Anyway, having the specific years seems only to serve to split up the categories; there's no collaborative value I can see from having the specific year as a category. Most transclusions will probably come from some birthday template, which can be tweaked to categorize into the parent categories. -Amarkov edits 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And to make this clear: I do not endorse deleting the decade categories. -Amarkov edits 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Decades are definitely better, but I doubt generations are defined so clearly. Xiner (talk, email) 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, they aren't. Merging into generations is probably a bad idea because of that, which is why I stopped at decades. -Amarkov edits 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm voting Delete all atm, as renaming nominations somtimes devolve into. I don't see many benefits of grouping users by birth decade. It's more likely they'll find a generational interest, eg Woodstock, which would have a Category of its own. Xiner (talk, email) 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's probably best to just delete all of these. We don't encourage giving this kind of personal info anyway, especially for children. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • While that may be true, it's really not relevant. This nomination is about merging into larger categories, not deleting birthyear categories entirely. You know very well what my opinion is on that. -Amarkov edits 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll stay neutral on this one. But I need to offer a procedural note: If the result of this discussion is "Delete", the categories at that point won't be deleted, but will instead be: Closed with a consensus to nominate all sub-categories, which could then be nominated here for deletion, since they weren't/aren't tagged. Part of the reason we tag categories when nominating them for discussion, is as a message to any who might be interested in the discussion. If you would like this discussion to "count" in the way I presume you've intended, then someone let me know when all the categories are tagged, and I'll be happy to relist to whatever day that is. Otherwise, I have "no problem" with the discussion continuing as is, with my previous comments in mind. (Though perhaps in that case, it should be moved to the talk page.) - jc37 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to say delete all here. Can anyone give me a reason on why these categories will help Misplaced Pages? The only use I can really see out of them is if a Wikipedian is listed as being born in the 20's or something and they suddenly stop editing, we will have an idea of why. VegaDark 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom I think that decadal categories have some (small) notional value since age roughly correlates with experience, interests, and knowledge. The individual year categories though are simply overcategorization without any added value that I can see. Eluchil404 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, individual year categories are definitely overcategorization. --tjstrf talk 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think I must be a liberal User Categorian. In my first visit today, I am having trouble voting to get rid of things generally agreed to be worthy of deleting. This is another case where I am not sure why people are against it. We have general categories for birth and death years. What is wrong with a user birth year category? TonyTheTiger 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into decade categories. However, to prevent people born after January 9, 1994 being listed in there, should we have 'People born from 1990 to 1993' and wait for January 1, 2008 to include 1994'ers, or what? 1ne 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot of them as trivial. At least the "by interest" cats let you find help in editing articles related to that interest. >Radiant< 09:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yawn...are people still talking about this? Anthony Rupert 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um... I may be wrong, but I don't believe this has ever come up before. I think you're either misreading my nomination or interpreting the "delete all" votes as what I meant. -Amarkov edits 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This kind of discussion took place before a month or so ago, when people argued whether or not categories of this sort were safe for children. (Incidentally, the result was keep.)
But I just noticed that you're voting to rename rather than delete, so I apologize. Anthony Rupert 05:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well yes, I was aware of that discussion (seeing as I started it...) My opinion here is not relevant to my opinion on whether or not "safe for children" is a good reason. -Amarkov edits 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into decade categories as being simpler and more usefull. As someone who is in one of these all on my own, I would like some company -:). Unfortunately all of the other category years from the 1930 are empty so I'm the oldest Wikipedian in these categories. On the issue of children I think we should be safe and not have a category for the 1990s. There are 52 entries in 1990 (aged 16 or 17), 27 in 1991 (most less than 16), 18 in 1992, and 8 in 1993. I do not believe we should encourage young Wikipedians to advertise their age. --Bduke 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, but you should allow a 1990's category. Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors, and the template dosen't tell you what age they are, so they could be 17, and we allow the Teen userbox/category. I think that deleting it would be discriminatory because it doesn't even identify the year of birth. Youth Wikipedians should be allowed to find each other just as Wikipedians of other age groups, and there's only a risk if the user places personally identifible information, which is discouraged anyway. The idea of disallowing such a broad category smacks of implicit adultism to me. J0lt C0la 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This nomination is not about deleting any of the decade categories. Stop bringing it up please. -Amarkov edits 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just saying what I said about the 1990's category in reply to the user above me, sorry but I just wanted to comment on it before it became a popular idea nearing consensus. J0lt C0la 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not sure it's against the rules to vote Delete on renaming noms. Xiner (talk, email) 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It isn't, but I still don't like it. -Amarkov edits 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Liking "voting" delete or keep or merge is irrelevant. 1ne 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware it's irrelevant. That still doesn't mean I have to like it. -Amarkov edits 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The merge argument makes no sense to me. We can easily quarrel about whether the information should exist at all, but if it exists, it might as well be specific. I think the information is fine, so I vote keep.--Mike Selinker 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 5

Wikipedians who like Naruto subcats

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

The result of the debate was UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Naruto - jc37 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am nominating all 27 subcategories of Category:Wikipedians who like Naruto for merger into their parent category. These subdivisions are all improperly titled, duplicates of their parent category, and do nothing to help collaboration since they simply describe the User's fictional affinity or allegiance within the Naruto universe. The subcategories are:

Merge all as nominator. --tjstrf talk 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Category:User pages requesting assistance

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#Category:User pages requesting assistance Timrollpickering 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:User pages requesting assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last CfD here (result was 'rename'.) This cat has a dubious premise, is unpopulated at the time of writing, and has only two entries in the what-links-here (three now I've added this nom), one of which is a previous CfD, so I'd guess it's unpatrolled. I've placed this nom here rather than UCfD because it seems to be a category of userpages, rather than a category of users (I don't mind this nom being moved if I'm wrong). --ais523 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To ask for help this way is to ask people to keep an eye on the members of this category, which is tedious. If you slap {{helpme}} on your talk page, as welcome messages say, it'll alert people in IRC to your plight. Which is faster, better known, and more often used? Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, which method depends on non-WP resources, which may not be available? The only way the catergory doesn't work is if WP is down, that's not true for the Freenode-hosted IRC stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, Category:Wikipedians looking for help (a more standard name btw) is what the helpme tag adds. Thus this is a duplicate and can be safely deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, whether a category is currently being used as a resource has nothing to do with whether a category is kept or not. - jc37 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am the nom, so putting 'delete' here would be misleading From what I gather from the last CfD, this was a request for help with a userpage (as in, 'I want a better userpage, can anyone help me?') and so is different from {{helpme}}, so I agree with Jc37. The confusion is just another reason why this should be deleted. --ais523 10:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, confusion from a name, would just be a reason to rename, I would think? This wouldn't be the first tume it's been renamed : ) - jc37 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It also wouldn't be the first time a category is deleted for overcategorization. Help with userpages isn't much different from help for other Misplaced Pages usage. Xiner (talk, email) 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is possible that the reason for the low population is that it may be one of the first place helpful wikipedians look to offer their services. Have you ever noticed how short the queue is at WP:RPP compared to some other queues. It is also probably the place where help is most readily supplied because of urgency. I think this user category is similar. TonyTheTiger 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Based on the what-links-here, I'd guess it has a low population because nobody knows about it. As far as I know, it doesn't send alerts to IRC like {{helpme}} (CAT:HELP) does, and it isn't linked on welcome messages. --ais523 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User en

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

The result of the debate was Keep - Again re-affirming consensus on the babel-specific categories. - jc37 12:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#Category:User en Timrollpickering 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

January 4

Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball Z

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Dragon Ball series. While there were many comments to use "interested in", both Category:Wikipedians interested in television and Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga use "who like" as a standard for their subcategories. Attempting to avoid an (understandable) immediate re-nomination based on "per consistancy". - jc37 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball Z → :Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball - Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT, Dragon Ball AF are all continuations of Dragon Ball. I really find it necessary for the page to be deleted/renamed (whatever, I don't know how this works) and moved to :Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball. That's how it should be since Dragon Ball is original (Besides, the article names are named with (Dragon Ball) in them, and not Dragon Ball Z or Dragon Ball GT). PL(DB) 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Dragon Ball series? Xiner (talk, email) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment is that how it should be? I just want it to be standard in general. Whatever is best to decide it... PL(DB) 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Many categories are being renamed to "interested in". I think this one should, too, as the whole point of user categories should be to aid in editing, not expressing a preference. Xiner (talk, email) 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Adventure Thru Inner Space

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty category. VegaDark 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Adventure Thru Inner Space - One member, the category (and userbox) creator. I removed the category from the userbox, which removed the userbox, and presumably the creator (hasn't updated yet). I was going to substitute a "interested in Disney theme parks" category, but it seems that we don't have one. - jc37 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians - Based on the November 23rd discussion. There was concensus to remove all members, but a concern about editing Wikipedian userpages, because it might be considered "bad etiquette". So I've broken the discussion into two parts. 1.) Remove the category from all templates (inlcuding userboxes) 2.) Remove the category from all user pages. (Note that this discussion is only about the members of the category, not the category itself, or any of its subcategories.) - jc37 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians, part 1
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Remove from all templates - jc37 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians, part 2
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Remove from all user pages (Though I was also hoping for more discussion, Cswrye. This only barely avoided "No consensus".) - jc37 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians, part 3
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus - jc37 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "something" per consensus (or oppose renaming of the category). (Added section due to tjstrf's comments - I honestly hadn't thought about renaming as another option, though we've had a recent Dec 2 CfD about it.) - jc37 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 2

Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous CfD

Although he's the grand poo-bah I think in most cases one's opinion of Jimbo isn't particularly important. In cases where it does matter having a category for it is not necessarily important. Lastly other "Jimbo opinion" related categories were deleted.--T. Anthony 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I was considering nominating this myself. There isn't any real use that I can see from this category. If kept, leaves open up the door for Category:Wikipedians who trust any other person. VegaDark 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment does this mean that we're going to remove all categories of Category:Wikipedians by Misplaced Pages philosophy that are not on this list? Part (but not all) of why I ask is that we had consensus to delete Category:Wikipedians who do not trust Jimbo as a "not" category. There are two supplementary reasons that "not" categories are deleted. The first is that often they can be seen as divisive, and the second is because if you add the positive form and the negative form (the "not category") you get a category that is potentially all Wikipedians. One of them should go, and so due to the first reason, "not" categories usually have general consensus to be deleted. So if we also delete the positive form, then we've taken away one of the reasons that the "not" category was deleted. I think we should keep this in mind, since this alone could be enough for someone to at least nominate for WP:DRV. - jc37 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - There are other reasons for wanting to delete these category besides one of them being a "not" category, so even if this category is deleted, it doesn't take away the reasoning behind deleting "not" categories. —Cswrye 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a significant philosophy vested in this category, even more so than "deletionism" vs. "inclusionism". --tjstrf talk 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - How does knowing who trusts Jimbo benefit the encyclopedia in any way? VegaDark 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I understand the philosophy behind this category, but I still don't like the idea of creating categories that point out specific editors (even someone as important as Jimbo). —Cswrye 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how this improves Misplaced Pages. At least rename it to Wikipedians who want a benevolent dictator. Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is irrelevant to the writing of the encyclopedia and it sends some very weird, and potentially bad, messages. We don't need a category for this; hopefully you do trust Jimbo, and if you don't, maybe you have your reasons, but either way, I don't see why the categories have to get involved in this issue. It's not something you'd scream from the rooftops. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - whether or not you trust Wales is a personal opinion; and personal opinions are for the User Space, not Misplaced Pages space. Also, would it not be simpler just to add {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User trusts Jimbo}} if you do trust Wales? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony cfc (talk • contribs).
  • Comment - While I know that he casts himself as "just another Wikipedian", he's also known by many as "our benevolent ruler", and other such names. His name has become intertwined with Misplaced Pages itself. And I think that this usage of his name may be a philosophical statement of some kind. (Though of what, I'm not certain. Clarification would be great.) - jc37 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) - jc37 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Whew, I didn't notice the smiley at first and was initially rather shocked at the response. Anyway, I presume that you mean "...better as as userbox..."? As for the sentiment, as I mentioned in the comment near the top of this discussion, we currently allow wikipedian philosophy categories. This would seem to be just one more... - jc37 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless Jimbo truly is omniscient the vast majority of the 1.5 million articles actually don't involve him. Organizational and administrative issues do, but I got the strong impression Category:Wikipedians by Misplaced Pages philosophy involves your editing philosophy. A philosophy about images, deletion, etc may impact editing in general. Something like trusting/distrusting the boss/poobah I think would fit something more specific like interest or collaboration or something.--T. Anthony 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this has more to do with the historical debates that once were on Misplaced Pages (involving such persons as User:Jimbo Wales, User:Larry Sanger, and User:The Cunctator), and similar discussions that go on even today. - jc37 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
So alternatively should we have Category:Wikipedians who support Larry Sanger or something?--T. Anthony 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Potentially, yes. I've done some reading/research... It would seem that this is a Wikipedian philosophy about Misplaced Pages itself. And whose vision the users in question support. - jc37 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a potentially divisive meta-category. People can express their pro-Jimbo sentiments on their userpages through userboxes or text but a category serves no useful purpose. Eluchil404 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobody trustworthy would want a cult of personality, so tautologically Jimbo wouldn't want this unless he were untrustworthy. Under the presumption that he is trustworthy, it should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Though I think this is about more than the individual, per se, I suppose it is about his perspective on Misplaced Pages... So: Bleah! @ you for making sense : ) - jc37 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously, we all trust Jimbo or we wouldn't trust the whole system!--Osidge 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As the nominator I hesitate to mention that the truth is I do not trust Jimbo. I do not know enough about him to make a decision on whether I trust him or not. That's why for a time I put myself in the defunct "Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo." Since then my attitude has evolved and I'd say on balance I lean more toward distrust than trust. Although I've not made a final verdict and I don't think I ever need to. Anyway this might screw up this nomination, but my main concern wasn't that. (Well mostly not, I have slight concerns that people here nearly fall into an unhealthy personality cult) I just think we should avoid personality issues like this in general.--T. Anthony 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Mike Selinker, above. - jc37 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Selinker's argument is interesting. I think the category is meant either as a joke or to confirm that we trust he is not a cult personality, if not a trustable cult personality. My thinking is that in either case the category is not useful due to ambiguity. I don't know what they are trusting him for. Are they trusting him as the leader of the cult or not to be a leader of a cult. TonyTheTiger 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I trust Jimbo because he's proven he can be trusted, and is generally a great guy. It's also somewhat tongue in cheek, for those who haven't lost their sense of humour. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 1

Category:Wikipedians who use 1600x1200 screen resolution

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use 1600x1200 screen resolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't see a purpose for this category. Knowing people's screen resolutions will not aid in the collaboration of any articles. A userbox is more than enough. VegaDark 11:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedians' tech specs are important information, but I have to concede that I can't think of a reason for this category. - jc37 12:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see one use for this, that use being to judge the relative prevalence of different monitor resolutions among editors. While seemingly useless data in and of itself, this information can be of great help to layout developers, who must consider screen resolution among other variable when making templates, setting image sizes, etc. If it turns out that 80% of editors use 1024x768, then the argument over whether a 300px image is overwhelming on a page just became much easier, as it can be made with some sort of empirical basis. In other words, a category not for direct collaboration, but for data gathering which nonetheless aids in collaboration. --tjstrf talk 12:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Reply to tjstrf - A userbox would be necessary in this case, not necessarily a category.--WaltCip 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete There'll always a significant percentage that use 800x600, so I'm not sure how much this will help. In any case, a self-selected group of userbox users is hardly representative of the general community. Xiner (talk, email) 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I really doubt that this category could have much use. I understand tjstrf's point, but I doubt that user categories would ever be used for that purpose. Even if they were, any statistics derived from them would be meaningless because they would not represent all Wikipedians since user categories are self-selected. —Cswrye 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.