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 18:15, 4 June 2007 editPomte (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,203 edits →[]: m← Previous edit Revision as of 19:35, 4 June 2007 edit undoJc37 (talk | contribs)Administrators48,942 edits reopened discussion, and moved commentNext edit →
Line 11: Line 11:


===June 4=== ===June 4===
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
⚫ The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Mass procedural nominations are not a productive use of time, or a fair discussion. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. These are all nominations with no ''argument'' for deletion at all, as they are being listed procedurally by a neutral party. They are unfairly predisposed to be kept already, with that process. Rather, if you disagree with a deletion, take it to '']'', where disputed deletions go, and ''explain your reasoning''. And if you are only neutral with respect to the deletion, and don't actually want something undeleted, don't waste our time with a nomination. ]·] 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

==== Speedied deletions ==== ==== Speedied deletions ====
:The following categories were recently speedily deleted by ]. Several of these survived recent UCFD discussions, and several editors posted concerns on Shanel's talk page about the deletions. As such, I'm listing them for "normal" UCFD discussion. I'm choosing to not pick amongst them, but to list them all individually for discussion. Note: Shanel has also depopulated several of them either partially or fully, by a userbox change, or direct user page editing. So the amount of editors in a category shouldn't be a factor in the discussions. - ] 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC) :The following categories were recently speedily deleted by ]. Several of these survived recent UCFD discussions, and several editors posted concerns on Shanel's talk page about the deletions. As such, I'm listing them for "normal" UCFD discussion. I'm choosing to not pick amongst them, but to list them all individually for discussion. Note: Shanel has also depopulated several of them either partially or fully, by a userbox change, or direct user page editing. So the amount of editors in a category shouldn't be a factor in the discussions. - ] 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
⚫ ::Mass procedural nominations are not a productive use of time, or a fair discussion. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. These are all nominations with no ''argument'' for deletion at all, as they are being listed procedurally by a neutral party. They are unfairly predisposed to be kept already, with that process. Rather, if you disagree with a deletion, take it to '']'', where disputed deletions go, and ''explain your reasoning''. And if you are only neutral with respect to the deletion, and don't actually want something undeleted, don't waste our time with a nomination. ]·] 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


===== Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians ===== ===== Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians =====
Line 96: Line 93:


*'''Neutral''' - listing for discussion. - ] 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC) *'''Neutral''' - listing for discussion. - ] 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>


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

Revision as of 19:35, 4 June 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Speedy nominations

  • If you have a legitimate candidate for speedy rename/merge/delete, place them here instead of under the date.
  • If something listed here is not a clear case for speedy, please re-list under the current date.

New nominations by date

  • Please list new nominations at the top of the list for today's date.

June 4

Speedied deletions

The following categories were recently speedily deleted by User:Shanel. Several of these survived recent UCFD discussions, and several editors posted concerns on Shanel's talk page about the deletions. As such, I'm listing them for "normal" UCFD discussion. I'm choosing to not pick amongst them, but to list them all individually for discussion. Note: Shanel has also depopulated several of them either partially or fully, by a userbox change, or direct user page editing. So the amount of editors in a category shouldn't be a factor in the discussions. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Mass procedural nominations are not a productive use of time, or a fair discussion. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. These are all nominations with no argument for deletion at all, as they are being listed procedurally by a neutral party. They are unfairly predisposed to be kept already, with that process. Rather, if you disagree with a deletion, take it to deletion review, where disputed deletions go, and explain your reasoning. And if you are only neutral with respect to the deletion, and don't actually want something undeleted, don't waste our time with a nomination. Dmcdevit·t 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians
  • Neutral - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Free spelling on Misplaced Pages is a preference for users to spell all words, except for proper nouns, however they see fit. At the moment a totally unworkable preference and one not practiced. But the preference remains and as Misplaced Pages content is composed of words, I think a relevant category. - Grumpyyoungman01 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves "jack of all trades"
  • Neutral - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I consider myself as belonging to this category, but choose not to list myself there as a more precise explanation of an editor's style on their user page is more helpful. Jack of all trades is not a simple enough concept to be given justice by a category, and it seems could only do so with subcategories. - Grumpyyoungman01 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Furry Wikipedians
Category:Geek Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested
Category:Absurdist Wikipedians
Category:Dadaist Wikipedians
Category:Nerd Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedian barefooters
Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians
Category:Pregnant Wikipedians
Category:BBW Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians with low bone density
Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns
Category:Wikipedians with nits

Category:Wikipedians who dispise the New York Yankees

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 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 debate was speedy deleted by Ryulong. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not" category. It does not help Misplaced Pages to know who does not like something. All similar categories have been deleted in the past, we have set enough precedent so stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 4 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

June 3

Category:User AIM-Able

Cat description is "Understand AIM talk but don't like it anyway? You're at home here". We don't need a category for people who "understand AIM talk but don't like it". This is useless and also a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User 1337

Category:User 1337-1

Category:User 1337-2

Category:User 1337-3

Category:User 1337-4

Category:User 1337-5

Useless babel categories. There will never be a Misplaced Pages written in Leet, and users will never have a legitimate reason to go looking for others in these categories. Hence, having categories for this is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Marksmanship Ribbon

Would set precedent for a category for every award/medal given out by every country's army, which we definitely don't need. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Afghanistan Campaign Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Armed Forces Reserve Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Iraq Campaign Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Korea Defense Service Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Kosovo Campaign Medal
Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: National Defense Service Medal
  • These medals have one article each, which do not themselves list the notable recipients, and there are quite a lot more of them, so I think they are better merged into Category:Wikipedian military people or appropriately named new subcategories.

Category:Wikipedians With MyCoke Points

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 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 debate was speedy deleted, only populated by deleted template. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the least useful user categories I have ever seen. And that's saying something. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Who Had An Atari 2600

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 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 debate was Delete - as empty, per creator's action. - jc37 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Another useless category. We don't need to categorize users based on previous ownership of items. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Kids Next Door Operatives

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 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 debate was speedy deleted, only populated by deleted template. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have Category:Wikipedians who like Codename: Kids Next Door. Categorizing "Operatives" is nonsense. Only user in the category is already in the latter, so no need to merge. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians owned by Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers

Category name speaks for itself. No joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who love knowledge

Similar to the recently deleted "Wikipedians interested in general knowledge" category, this is potentially speedyable. Potentially all-inclusive and not useful. VegaDark (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:SpamCop Users

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 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 debate was speedy rename, uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 4 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

June 1

Xbox

Per such discussions as the one below.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose rename of Xbox Live, support rename of Xbox 360. Xbox live is an online service, and therefore there are not exactly "games" for the feature, as would be expected.--WaltCip 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Xbox live category, rename 360 category. Don't need a category for those who play Xbox live, a category for that would only facilitate collaboration on 1 more article than its parent category, so it is unnecessary. Don't upmerge, since both regular Xbox and Xbox 360 use Xbox live and there isn't any way to know which applies to each user. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo

Per such discussions as the one below.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Unlike the other consoles, "Nintendo" does not appear to be part of the name "Wii". I think "play the Wii" is more correct than "play Wii", as in the article. –Pomte 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Games" isn't really necessary. Some PS2 games are also Xbox games are also GameCube games. It's the console that's in the spotlight here. However, without "games" they'd need the article "the". Either way, go with the article name. –Pomte 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless you're juggling the joysticks or something, you're not playing with the console. It's merely a means to an end, ie. playing games. It's just shorter to say "...who play <console> games", than to say "...who play games on the <console>". (and we also avoid the "on" vs "using" debate : ) - Oh, and support using the most common name, which, presumably, should be the same as the article. - jc37 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by number of edits

(Relisted due to additional tagging 2 days into the discussion) - jc37 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: "...5,000 edits" has already been deleted as empty by User:Anthony Appleyard. - jc37 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: Now all target categories listed, as well as Category:Wikipedians with over 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits, and Category:Wikipedians by edit count have been tagged with the proposition to delete all edit count categories being brought up. VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep When it comes down to it these categories keep getting deleted and recreated over and over again and it is much more valuable to have them well-organized, uniform and easily located than to fool ourselves into thinking that editors don't keep track of the number of edits they make. I would also comment that putting a CFD notice on the categories will not lead to a concensus involving those in the categories, only those who patrol the deletion discussions hoping to "nuke" things that don't fit thier view of wikipedia as some kind of eutopia. I will be notifying those who requested this particular feature be added and I only hope that these are not deleted without the input of those in the categories. Adam McCormick 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    "I would also comment that putting a CFD notice on the categories will not lead to a concensus involving those in the categories..." - Well, as this is the process for all XfD (CfD/AfD/MfD/TfD/etc) discussions, you might want to find a relevant talk page or Village pump page to discuss that concern? - jc37 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete Rereading the nomination it is proposed to consolidate categories, which is fine with me, the tags on some of these are wrong though. I would not support removing Category:Wikipedians with fewer than 5000 edits, Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits as they both work with {{User contrib}} which is the source of this nomination in the first place Adam McCormick 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

May 31

Category:User iu...

Nonsense babel category. "These users wish to speak Inuktitut". Essentially a 0-level category, since this is for people who don't speak the language at all. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Userpages under construction

"A category for people who feel that they don't have a completed userpage. Yet." - We don't need a category for this. Nobody is going to have a reason to go looking for userpages that are under construction. Looks like the category was created simply for the sake of being associated with the template. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:User ot

Category:User ot-1

Category:User ot-2

Category:User ot-3

Category:User ot-4

Category:User ot-5

"These users would like to be able to speak more languages", "This user would like to be able to speak many more languages", etc. etc. Knowing who wants to speak more languages is not useful to Misplaced Pages at all. The only possible useful one is the last one, stating "This user is a professional translator of one or more languages". It isn't all that helpful without knowing what languages they translate, however, and such a category shouldn't be in the babel system if deemed keepable.

Category:User rot13

Category:User rot13-2

Category:User rot13-3

Category:User rot13-4

Category:User rot13-5

Don't need categories for this invented language. There will never be a Misplaced Pages written in ROT13, nobody will ever have a use for going through such categories to find people. Category:User rot13-1 does not currently exist, but this should set precedent for that category as well. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 30

Category:Wikipedian edit archive

Rename Category:Wikipedian edit archive to Category:Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits - Following "Lists of..." naming convention. - jc37 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian bassists

Delete as redundant to Category:Wikipedian bass guitarists, which is used to disambiguate against Category:Wikipedian double bassists. –Pomte 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:User Hrkt-0.5

Nonsense babel category level, only whole numbers please. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:User en-sg-2.5

Nonsense babel category level, only whole numbers please. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:User en-6

No 6-level categories, please. Says the same exact thing for 5-level, and should be merged. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to Category:User en-5 as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - professorial is professional, unless I'm missing something. –Pomte 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Except for different colors, means pretty much the same thing. -- Hdt83 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as author. The command of the English language exhibited by some of the so-called "professionals" sporting Category:User en-5 is sorely lacking.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages can't police user cats to determine who actually belongs in what category, and the solution isn't to continually make higher and higher babel level categories based on the personal opinion that people in the previous level don't qualify. You are also arguing that this be the only 6-level babel category allowed, what makes this so special? VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I write articles off-Wiki for teaching purposes on the nuts and bolts of English (TEFL). There'll be plenty of others around here who can make similar claims. Roger 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This doesn't explain how the 5-level category wouldn't suffice. VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The groups don't compare the same things. En-4 is about familiarity/comfort. En-5 is about social context. En-6 is about depth/breadth of knowledge.Roger 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Merge – I don't see how "familiarity/comfort" is different from "social context". "Professional" is clearly about depth/breadth of knowledge: compare de-5, which says "this user has a command of the German language like a professional writer". BTW, isn't the word "professorial" ridiculous? David Marjanović 22:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • En-4 applies equally to a two-year old child and Shakespeare. En-5 merely says that someone is a professional (ie lawyer, accountant, architect, doctor etc) not they are professional writers. (And yes it is.) Roger 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having En-5 is redundant enough; there is no need for more of this nonsense. What's next, En-7, "academician level"? En-8, "inventor of the English language"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think en-5 is redundant. I can write scientific articles in English, but have never lived among native speakers, the scope of my vocabulary is still a bit biased, and there are even still a few cases where I'm not quite sure whether to use the past tense or the present perfect tense. So I'm en-5 but not en-4. David Marjanović 22:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - What the other 5 mean may need to be redefined (and so, arguing whether 5 is different than 6 is pointless). But, do not create 6th level babel cats, if you please. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need to start promoting grade inflation in the Babel boxes. If people are breaking the system by overstating their proficiency in English (as the author suggests above), then we need to change the system in a basic way, not apply this kind of Band-aid. --7Kim 09:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles

Classic "not" category. Categorizing by things we don't own does not help Misplaced Pages in any way. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The category text implies that these users are interested in Template:Sustainability and Energy Development, but that's not necessarily the case given the userbox text. –Pomte 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The ubx was modelled on the {{User Sustainable Living}} ubx. The green background and earth were meant to signify interest in Sustainable living. --DieWeibeRose 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If Rename is a permissible vote, I so vote, else my vote is Delete. My problem isn't so much with the category itself as the negative and indirect framing of the category name. If we're going to categorise Wikipedians, the meaning of the categorisation should be affirmative and direct, not based on the implications of the category. And ideally as short as possible. Category:Carless Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians who practise sustainable living would be good by me, but not the name the category currently holds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7Kim (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007.
    • "Carless Wikipedians" would still be a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure; there are nots and nots. It seems to me a little simplistic to say "The name contains a negator (e.g. non- or -less) and the category is therefore a 'not'-category." Category:Non-redhead Wikipedians is unacceptable on its face; Category:Wikipedians who practise non-western medicine is clearly acceptable. And does either its (approximate) synonymy with Category:Wikipedians who do not enjoy sex or the negator a- render Category:Asexual Wikipedians invalid? If one becomes listed under Category:Carless Wikipedians it is because one has made a point of not owning a car, either by manually categorising oneself or by using a template that automatically does so (that is, it is an opt-in category); so the category becomes limited to those who do not drive cars for an articulable reason. A similar argument applies to non-smokers. If there is, for example, an articulable difference between "non-smokers" and "people who do not smoke" (and I feel there is -- that "non-smokers" have made a conscious choice to reject smoking whereas "people who do not smoke" may simply have never taken up the habit), then it's not quite so obvious that Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians is a not-category. I'm not arguing against avoiding not-categories, just against using that principle as a mechanical rule rather than a guideline that alerts us to cases that then must be judged on their own merits.
        • --7Kim 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • We allow some "not" categories, but only ones that are beneficial to the encyclopedia. For instance, Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators. The whole reasoning behind having the "not" category rule is that not categories almost always do not help Misplaced Pages in any way. For instance, it does not help Misplaced Pages in any way to know who does not own a car, or who does not smoke. It doesn't help Misplaced Pages to know who consciously made the decision to not smoke. It does, on the other hand, help to know who is interested in topics that have enough articles for such people to collaborate on. If a "not" category can help Misplaced Pages, then I wouldn't mind it existing, and I don't think categories are mechanically nominated just because they are a not category. The whole purpose of user categories is to improve the encyclopedia, which I believe this category does not, under any name. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Very well, then. If what you're saying is that utility to Misplaced Pages is the criterion for distinguishing a not worthy of keeping from a not worthy of deletion, then there's no further need to discuss the not question here -- lack of utility to Misplaced Pages is a stronger and more interesting objection that can justify deletion on its own. --7Kim 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a Non-smoking Wikipedians category. Is that a "Classic 'not' category"? I'm just trying to understand the rules. --DieWeibeRose 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It is definitely a "not" category by my definition. Unfortunately when I nominated that for deletion last, it ended in no consensus for some reason. We really don't need to categorize people who don't smoke, and have been considering a renomination of that soon. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Delete cat - i don't own a car so i won't care if i don't own a userbox. -- FayssalF - 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Provisional Keep Rename if possible, else Delete - I'm also having the same problem understanding what is wrong with this userbox. Exactly what policy or guideline is it violating? I also have the userboxes for non-smoker, non-drinker, drug-free, and atheist, all of which are "not" categories. If a userbox must "help Misplaced Pages" then how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Misplaced Pages? Show me the basis for this deletion request and then I may change my vote. -- HiEv 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • First and formost, please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. Second of all, there is (rightly) no category associated with drug-free wikipedians (category was deleted here a while back) or for alcohol-free wikipedians. Athiest counts as a religion category, and is not considered a "not" category. The non-smoking category can be explained with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and the category should be deleted. As for "how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Misplaced Pages?" Users with such categories can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to the university. There is no article titled People that don't have a car or anything similar, so there is nothing for such users to collaborate on. If the intent of this category is for people who support sustainable living, they are free to join Category:Wikipedians who support Sustainable Living. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't ask for an explanation of the Non-smoking Wikipedians category. I merely asked, "Is that a 'Classic "not" category'?" Ditto, the Homeless Wikipedians category. As for alcohol and drug-free Wikipedians there is the Straight edge Wikipedians category. --DieWeibeRose 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, I somehow missed the difference between "category" and "userbox" before. I have to agree with 7Kim above though, being a "not" category isn't a good reason to delete a category. As I mentioned earlier, "atheist Wikipedians" is a "not" category, because it lists people who do not believe in gods. However, there is utility to the "atheist" category. Still, one could ask, "What's next? Wikipedians who don't believe in Santa Claus?" You can see why that argument fails, just because some "not" categories are ridiculous does not mean there are no "not" categories that can be useful. If a more useful category for "car-free Wikipedians" could be used instead then it should be renamed to that category, if not, then delete it. -- HiEv 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. a "not" category. What's next, Category:Wikipedians who don't own hovercraft? —ptk✰fgs 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - "not-category", with (imho) only tenuous ties to eco-issues. - jc37 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename - Following the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category I propose renaming the category as "Car-free Wikipedians" or, alternatively, "Wikipedians who support the car-free movement." This would link the category to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Misplaced Pages community. Car-free Wikipedians could reasonably be expected to be interested in collaborating on the Car-free movement article and some of the several related articles listed in its "See also" section. Does this solve the problem? --DieWeibeRose 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The logic for creating Category:Wikipedians who support the car-free movement would be the same as the straight-edge Wikipedian category, as there are a few articles such people in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on. I don't think, however, that a rename of this category would work, since I doubt all current members of the category support the movement. You could make a new category, though. VegaDark (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Those categories are all essentially the same thing as "I don't drive a car." If you want to categorized Wikipedians by transport, don't categorize them by what they don't use. Categorize them by what they do use, for example, Category:Wikipedian cyclists.—ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Okay, I'm going to create "Car-free Wikipedians" and modify the ubx to add users to that category. I'll drop the Sustainable living stuff. I've already notified, on their talk pages, all of the users using the ubx that there is an ongoing discussion about deleting the category the box is associated with. --DieWeibeRose 10:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Please give this discussion at least a few more days before spinning off an exact clone of the category under discussion here. "Car-free Wikipedians" means exactly the same thing as "Wikipedians who don't own automobiles". —ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • May I suggest something that obviates the "not" objection we keep hearing? Category:Wikipedians who use public transit would do so nicely. --7Kim 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed, "Car-free" Wikipedians still means wikipeidians who don't own a car, whereas "Wikipedians who support the car-free movement" is a different type of category and would work along the lines of the Straight-Edge Wikipedians cat. (I still don't think we should have categories for Wikipedians who support/oppose anything, but that is a different debate alltogether). Ideally I'd like this to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement if kept. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The rationale for avoiding "not" categories goes back over months of discussions. Essentially the idea is: 1.) We should avoid all-inclusive categories. 2.) 2 categories covering the same topic (differing in one is positive and the other negative) would together be essentially "all-inclusive". 3.) Therefore one of the two should be deleted. 4.) typically the "negative" (also known as the "not"-based category) should be deleted, since the positive is more likely to be useful for positive collaboration (whether direct or indirect), and the negative form is more likely to be divisive or inflammatory. - Therefore, since we have Category:Wikipedians who drive cars and Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles, one of them should be deleted, and in this case, it's clearly the negative form. It doesn't matter if we call it "Car-free", or whatever, it's still the negative form, or in other words, a "not" category, and so it should be deleted. I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem with the "a non-'not' category exists" argument is that not everyone uses the category if it applies to them. So, just because somebody doesn't use the "I drive a car" category doesn't mean that they don't drive a car. "I do" means you do, "I don't" means you don't, having neither could mean either. Thus the existence of an "I do X" category does not by itself obviate the utility of an "I avoid X" category. -- HiEv 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is worth exactly what you all paid for it, but I would suggest that the not-ness of a category should not be viewed as cause for deletion in and of itself, but as a flag that alerts us that other reasons for deletion may exist. Looking back over history, it seems to me that categories labelled as nots, when deleted, have always had other arguments against them -- lack of Wiki-utility, redundancy, divisiveness, silliness, irrelevance, overly broad scope, &c. In editing, the use of passive voice is not itself bad, but extensive use of passive voice serves as a good predictor for the presence of weasel words, unsourced assertions, and POV problems. So too with category management -- a negatively framed category title or definition is not itself bad, but serves as a good predictor of a valid cause for deletion. --7Kim 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - The category is empty--68.42.141.76 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Firstly, if it is empty I don't know why- I am in it! (or at least display the image) Secondly, the majority of the population do own cars, so much so that not-owning one has become a source of comment, and thus earns a catagory. Larklight 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's been replaced--I think it was useful: it indicates a certain attitude towards life and a likely interest in a range of topics. DGG 22:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this results in delete, which it looks like it will, I will consider Category:Car-free Wikipedians to be speedy deletable as meaning the same exact thing (While the category description says otherwise, the name of the category needs to reflect that, which it doesn't). The first thing people will think when they see "Car-Free" will be people that do not have a car, not people who support the car free movement. If you want to have that category, which is fine by me, please rename it to what I said would be acceptable, Category:Wikipedians who support the car-free movement or Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement. Since "Car-free Wikipedians" can reasonably be assumed to mean Wikipedians who don't own a car (despite the description), I think it would be a valid G4 speedy deletion as "substatially identical" to this category. Once again, I encourage you to create a category whose name does not reflect the reason why this category is about to be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Administrator VegaDark has already expressed her/his determination to speedy delete this category. Category:Car-free Wikipedians is not a clone of Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars. "Car-free Wikipedians" is not a "not-category" but rather about an affirmatiion of support for or adherence to the Car-free movement. In this, it follows the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category. The category links users to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Misplaced Pages community. Car-free Wikipedians could reasonably be expected to be interested in collaborating on the Car-free movement article and some of the several related articles listed in its "See also" section. None of this was true of the now deleted Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars.
Misplaced Pages's "speedy deletion" policy states that, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." There is reasonable doubt about whether the two categories in questions are substantially the same. Also, since Category:Car-free Wikipedians was created days before Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars was deleted then criterion G4 does not apply--it is patently not "A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted." Furthermore, as the creator of both categories, I can state unequivocally that Category:Car-free Wikipedians was created as a good faith effort to address valid concerns about Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars, which I never voted to keep. Reasonable doubts exist, therefore, any discussion of deleting Category:Car-free Wikipedians--if such a discussion takes place at all--should not take place using the speedy delete method. --DieWeisseRose 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

--DieWeisseRose 09:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Ok, after going therough related articles, categories, and reference links, what I've essentially found are either remote villages which prefer donkey travel, islands, and cycling paths and locations. Very little is about the eco-concerns, and more about supporting cycling. That said, there are several organisations interested in this, and obviously Wikipedians interested in this, so some sort of Wikipedian category related to this issue would seem appropriate as a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians by political issue. It definitely needs a rename ("carfree" is one such name), and an effort needs to be made to keep this from duplicating Category:Wikipedian cyclists. - jc37 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support the development of Renewable Energy

Useless category. Does anyone not support the development of renewable energy? Might as well have a category for people who support improved health care, improved human rights, etc. Also, "Renewable Energy" should not be capitalized, so at least needs a rename. I'd also support a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy.

May 28

Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants

Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:WikiProject Irish Music members, duplicate. -- Prove It 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

May 27

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University Belfast
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To differentiate Queen's University Belfast from Queen's University in Canada. Cordless Larry 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

May 26

Category:Wikipedians interested in Local History

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 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 debate was Delete - jc37 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Local" varies for every person on Misplaced Pages, so as is, this category is essentially useless for collaborative purposes. A way to salvage it would be to make it in to a parent category and change the name to Category:Wikipedians by local history interest, and have subcategories for each city. Unfortunately, we we would have to ask everyone in the category which city's local history they are interested in to determine this, so I don't know if this is salvagable. As is, this category is no more useful than if someone just wrote they were interested in local history on their userpage. "Local History" shouldn't be capitalized, so this at minimum needs a rename.

  • Neutral pending more discussion, but leaning towards delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - At first I was thinking that this could be kept if the inclusion criteria involved local culture and society in general as sociological items. However, it's clear from the category introduction that this is not the case. This merely duplicates every "Wikipedian by location" category into one sprawling category which is potentially all-inclusive. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This just isn't useful unless it provides a means for finding Wikipedians interested in the history of some particular locality. Which is an interesting idea, but I don't see the possibility of it without building and filling a perfectly gargantuan category tree. Even then, how local one can go without passing the notability horizon is not an argument I care to be present for. --7Kim 19:54, 1 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for an end to the boxwar

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 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 debate was No consensus - jc37 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This category became more or less obsolete when Misplaced Pages:Userbox migration came along. I don't think this category was useful at any point time, but It certainly isn't useful now. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians supporting the revival of New Jack Swing

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 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 debate was Delete - jc37 10:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not something Misplaced Pages needs a category for. I'm sure everyone supports the revival of various things, but having categories for such things will not improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Emeraldists

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 at author's request. NoSeptember 11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"The wikipedians who have joined User:Alphablast/The emerald society". Sorry, we don't need categories for unofficial userspace groups. Similar categories have been deleted many times in the past. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User tpi-0

Category:User no-0

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

  • {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
  • {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
  • {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
  • {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

Talk page notices

Miscellaneous

0-level category. Mass deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify, since this specific one hasn't been deleted before. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

May 25

Category:Wikipedian Autograph Pages

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 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 debate was No consensus - Speedily renaming to Category:Wikipedian autograph pages per proper caps. - jc37 10:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not aid collaboration in any way. At all. Also, wasn't something like this deleted before? – Gurch 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think all these autograph pages should be deleted. They are all a waste of space and people's time. However, until that happens, a category to group them all might not be a bad idea (in order to make it easier for a group MfD). VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books. A•N•N•A hi! 00:11, 26 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Long hair advocates

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 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 debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No possible collaborative use; WP:NOT a webhost or social networking site. (ESkog) 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - "This lists Wikipedians who are against female haircutting" - Sorry, we don't need a category for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a major issue in some countries of the world, as well as some religious sects/groups/whatever. However, I can't tell if this is the intent of the category, or just a category of those who find long hair on women attractive, and are opposed to it being cut. Keep if the former is true, else Delete if the latter is true. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If that were the case (which there is no indication of either way), this category would still need a rename, so deletion looks like the best option. VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 1 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Singaporean Misplaced Pages administrators

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 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 debate was speedy delete per previous consensus on admins per country categories. Picaroon (Talk) 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This one must have slipped through the cracks of the Administrators by country UCFD a while back. In either case, I think that established enough precedent for this to be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 02:44, 25 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Audio file editors

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 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 debate was Speedy Rename - jc37 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Rename Category:Audio file editors to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files - added Wikipedians and re-arrange order. - jc37 08:54, 14 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 24

Category:Wikipedians Who Use gedit

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 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 debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use gedit (per ). - jc37 10:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Gedit for proper capitalisation.

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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 23

Category:Extra-terrestrial Wikipedians

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 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 debate was speedy deleted per creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't be true, does not help Misplaced Pages in any way. Categories like these are explicitly mentioned in the essay on what categories not to make. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 21

Sony PlayStation

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 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 debate was Do not rename the PS2 or PS3 categories. Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Sony PlayStation to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 1 games. - The article lists several synonyms, including: PSone, PSOne, PS one, or PS1. Simply chose "1" to match 2 and 3. - jc37 09:25, 3 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: