Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/September 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2007 October 2007 >

September 30

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like Operator Please

[edit]
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 precedent. ^demon[omg plz] 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Operator Please (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as Wikipedians by musician. -- Prove It (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 by alma mater: Gosford High School

[edit]
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 precedent. ^demon[omg plz] 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gosford High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as Wikipedians by high school. -- Prove It (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 29

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by artist

[edit]
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, CSD G4. ^demon[omg plz] 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as a recreation of Wikipedians by musician. -- Prove It (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 keeping Update

[edit]
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, by creators consent. -- Prove It (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians keeping Update (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:WikiProject Update Watch participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- Prove It (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project doesn't recruit members so it will be rather Category:WikiProject Update Watch participants if it needs changing at all. ℒibrarian2 13:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my nomination to participants, sounds like the right thing to do. -- Prove It (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 27

[edit]

Category:Jesus freak Wikipedians

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jesus freak Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for members of the Jesus movement that chooses to use a pejorative term (see jesus freak) for members of the group. The category does not foster collaboration and is, in my opinion, too narrow in scope..

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.

Scottish English categories

[edit]
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 Merge both to Category:User en-sco. There was no consensus to delete, and more chose en-sco than any other name (including both category creators). - jc37 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following two categories (and their numeric subcats) were recently created:

The apparent intent of the categories is to categorise users who speak Scottish English (distinguished from Scots language which is categorised under Category:User sco).

This is a relisting of the previous discussion below. There is consensus that the two categories are duplicative of each other, the main concern is to what name should the categories have. And one editor questioned whether the categories should be deleted outright.

Both as a result of Userbox creation.

User en-sc was supported because it was "first", and because several editors felt that the alternative was a "mouthful". There were also concerns about not having any reference to GB (Great Britain).

Category:User en-gb-sct was suggested because of ISO 3166-1 abbreviations of "other" english languages (such as American English). However, there were concerns that that ISO standard was about geography rather than language. And that ISO 639 is the usual naming convention.

Though there is an ISO 639 code for Scots language (sco), there is no actual ISO 639 code for Scottish English, so what is used will be a "created" abbreviation as a result of this discussion.

One suggestion was to follow the en- scheme, and just add sco as the only anglic-scottish-related abbreviation, which would name the category Category:User en-sco.

There was also the concern that "sc" is the ISO 3166-1 abbreviation for Seychelles, and so it should not be used. See Seychelles#Demographics which explains that English is an offical language of the country. Also, "sc" is the 639-1 abbreviation for the Sardinian language.

So for this discussion, since it's already determined that the two are duplicative, and so at least one should be merged/deleted, please state which name you prefer (or if you prefer some other result). - jc37 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no opinion as yet - Renominating for clarity (and civility) in discussion. - jc37 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to en-sco — Ethnologue shows that one of the dialects of English is Lowland Scottish. [1] (In Scotland the Scots language [ISO 639-2 sco] is called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic [ISO 639-1 gd] spoken by some in the Highlands and Islands [especially the Hebrides].). The same reliable source verifies that Scots is a seperate language. [2] Since the Scottish English dialect predates its current political standing, I understand that many Wikipedians believe that "en-gb-sct" is not a good match. The ISO 3166-1 for Seychelles is "sc", so it is also not a good match. Therefore, I suggest that we merge to "en-sco". Taric25 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge cats and their parent templates to en-sco. I have got to be honest, when I first created the set of templates and their associated cats I swithered between "en-sc" and "en-sco", but chose the former because every other English language dialect template and cat used two letters, not three. But "sco" is quite widely used by Scots (eg. on car licence plates), and is thus easily understood.(For the record, Scottish English is not "a dialect", but rather a group of dialects; just as are other varieties of English with Wikipedia articles. And Scottish English does not have "a current political standing" - that "political standing" was/is a figment of Taric25's imagination.) --Mais oui! 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to en-sco. 'Nuff said. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either to en-sc or en-sco. I understand the Saychelles may need SC, so I'd be perfectly happy with SCO. Not sure if there is much difference, but I've a slight preference to use the boxes from en-sc rather than the en-gb-sct ones as they seemed tidier. MRM 11:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) - I should really read these things before voting. I'd be happy to delete both categories, but merge the boxes to en-sco.MRM 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to en-sc or en-sco. Lurker (said · done) 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being able to speak Scottish English (as opposed to any other English, my issue is with the needless specification of which dialect) doesn't foster contribution. ^demon[omg plz] 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (first choice), Merge to Category:User en-sc (second choice) or Merge to Category:User en-sco (third choice). As a side note, since I was unfairly flamed in the previous thread, note that the userbox will be retained in any case; we are simply discussing deleting the superfluous categories attached to the userboxes in question. (In fact, the two dueling userboxes are an issue that might be addressed at WP:TFD by an enterprising and intrepid editor, by proposing the deletion of one box or the other.) I gave a fairly detailed rationale for my position in the previous thread; I'll not repeat it here. Horologium t-c 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (1st choice) or merge to Category:User en-sco (2nd choice). The discussion thus far has focused on the redundance of these categories, but I have to ask: what purpose do these categories serve? Language categories are only useful when they can assist translation efforts ... are the written forms of regular and Scottish English mutually unintelligible? If not, the categories do nothing to foster collaboration. Black Falcon (Talk) 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is "regular" English? Is it British English, American English or something else? There are several forms of the language, all of which are considered valid. Sometimes there are differences which affect articles (see the edit warring that sometimes breaks out on articles like aluminium) and it is useful to know who speaks what. Also, if someone uses a form of spelling or grammar I find unfamiliar is it a typo or is it a valid usage in another form of English? Knowing they speak another form of the language is useful in this situtation. Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I should have asked: is the written form of Scottish English unintelligible to speakers of other variants of English? Regarding your point about edit warring on articles ... those are essentially always about spelling, which is really a minor difference. Regarding your point about the usefulness of knowing who speaks what: deletion of the categories would not remove the userboxes from individual editors' userpages. The examples you note are cases where one might want to know whether a specific person speaks Scottish English; a category listing everyone who self-identifies as speaking Scottish English is not necessary for that. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment This goes back to my comment in the first thread. I don't see anything wrong with the userbox; in fact, I have one on my userpage, noting that I use American English. However, I found a userbox that does not have a category appended to it. (User:Feureau/UserBox/AmericanEnglish) Knowing someone uses a particular style of grammar is something that is relevant only on a personal level; one can (and probably should) view an editor's user page if language usage is an issue, but there is no reason to categorize them separately by dialect. There are userboxes for all sorts of regional American and British dialects of English, but the user categories that were appended to them were removed last month at UCfD, which allows individual editors to add userboxes to describe their usage without adding more unneeded categories. Horologium t-c 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (first choice, per demon), merge to en-sc (second choice). These are user categories for wikipedians who speak a dialect, nothing states we have to follow ISO standards. And please, stop throwing around Encyclopedic content must be verifiable by a relaible source. If that's the case for this category, everyone who wanted to be in it would also need verification by a reliable source that they do in fact, speak scottish english. I'm guessing the category, whatever it be named, would remain empty. --Kbdank71 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: ISO 639 has been the general consensus for language naming convention around here lately (Though of course, WP:CCC or WP:IAR may apply : ) - Also, thanks for the last sentence, it made me laugh : ) - jc37 01:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Article Rescue Squadron Members

[edit]
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. Other discussions appear to have no result, closing this to fix capitalization and maintain status quo otherwise. After Midnight 0001 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article Rescue Squadron Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Article Rescue Squadron members, sentence case. -- Prove It (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Relist to allow project name discussion to complete.[reply]
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:User cyr

[edit]
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 merge all. After Midnight 0001 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic is an alphabet not a language and the appropriate ISO 15924 code is "Cyrl" not "cyr". Black Falcon (Talk) 02:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all as per nom. The correctly named and categorized cats exist already. Horologium t-c 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was going to close this as "per nom", but then I remembered that previous consensus has been that the non-glyph alphabet cats should only be a single cat (either you know it or you don't). I don't doubt that you both agree, since you were both in those discussions, but I'm going to wait another day to close this to give you (and anyone else) an opportunity to comment on that. - jc37 10:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't actually recall that discussion, but I remember that you noted something similar in the discussion for Category:User Latn. I agree that subcategorising alphabet categories by knowledge level is somewhat strange, at least for those writing systems that involve a small, fixed number of characters (the exception I'm thinking of Chinese, which has thousands of characters), but such subcategorisation seems to be a common feature of Category:Wikipedians by writing system. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 academic philosophers

[edit]
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 merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy. After Midnight 0001 22:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian academic philosophers into Category:Wikipedian philosophers
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation in the form of mostly overlapping categories. Is the difference between these categories substantial enough to justify their separate existence? Does maintaining the distinction have any value in terms of fostering encyclopedic collaboration? I do not think so. At least 92.5% of users in the former category also appear in the latter.
I propose that we first modify Template:User Philosophy Subject, which currently states "This user's favourite subject is Philosophy.", so that it no longer categorises in either category (merely liking philosophy does not make one a philosopher; perhaps that userbox should categorise into Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy or perhaps it just shouldn't categorise users at all), and then merge what's left in the "academic philosophers" category into Category:Wikipedian philosophers. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 26

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha

[edit]
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 renamed. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose speedy renaming: Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha → Category:Wikipedians who like InuYasha
Nominator's rationale - Per all InuYasha-related titles, this one was misspelled, badly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: transferred from WP:CFD as wrong forum for proposal. Procedural non-admin action. BencherliteTalk 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Zachary talk 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 attend Delta Secondary School

[edit]
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 precedent. ^demon[omg plz] 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who attend Delta Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_high_school_and_subcats. -- Prove It (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 irish harp players

[edit]
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 both. After Midnight 0001 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian irish harp players to Category:Wikipedian harpists
Nominator's rationale: The latter category serves only as a parent for the former, which in turn contains only one user. I do not know how different the irish harp is from other types of harps, but I do not think it is sufficiently different, in the context of fostering encyclopedic collaboration, to merit a separate category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 national Olympic team fans

[edit]
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 both. After Midnight 0001 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian national Olympic team fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedian New Zealand Olympic team fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As I see it, expressing support for a national Olympic team is really no different that expressing support for one's country. So, absent a clear mechanism by which these categories foster collaboration and with the hope of preventing the proliferation of "I support my country and the sports teams that represent it internationally"-type categories, I propose that both categories be deleted.

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 keyboard percussionists

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian keyboard percussionists into Category:Wikipedian percussionists
Nominator's rationale: Considering that we do not have an article for keyboard percussion instruments and that the article percussion instrument does not contain a single instance of the word "keyboard", I think that this is overcategorisation. On the whole, I do not believe that the separate existence of this category fosters collaboration, especially since the category contains only one user. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Spinelli fans

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 03:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for fans of works by Jerry Spinelli. Since there is a precedent for deleting "fan of [individual]" categories, it should either be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who read Jerry Spinelli per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in books or deleted as too narrow in scope (it currently contains only one user).

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:User harpsichord

[edit]
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 upmerge. After Midnight 0001 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To conform to the title of the parent category, Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument.

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 own an Apple iPhone

[edit]
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, G4. ^demon[omg plz] 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who own an Apple iPhone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE: this category does not foster collaboration. Merely owning a particular product implies neither an above-average ability nor desire to contribute encyclopedic content about it. See also precedents for Category:Wikipedians who use iPods, Category:User owns a Pink Ipod, Category:Wikipedians who use a Tablet PC, and Category:Wikipedian D-Star users, all of which were deleted. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Western Hockey League fans

[edit]
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 all. After Midnight 0001 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Western Hockey League fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes the following:

These are categories for fans of individual Canadian junior ice hockey teams. The majority (11 of 13) contain only a userbox but no actual users or a userbox and just one user. We should not preemptively create categories unless we are certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... about half of these categories have been effectively empty since January. Moreover, since these are junior ice hockey teams and since there are currently only ten actual users distributed between these 14 categories, I propose that we do one of the following:

  1. Delete all categories, including the parent, as too narrow in scope/lacking collaborative value.
  2. Selectively delete only the zero-user categories (i.e. those that contain only the userbox), of which there are six.
  3. Upmerge all subcategories to the parent category, which will take care of the issue of overcategorisation and category clutter and also reduce the WP:MYSPACE aspect of specific "fan" categories. The favoured team of each individual user will still be identified by the userbox on their userpage.
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 drink Pepsi Max

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who drink Pepsi Max (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#Wikipedians_by_diet. -- Prove It (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Panda's thumb

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panda's thumb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User category serving no collaborative purpose. Delete --Alksub 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 25

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use hieroglyphs

[edit]
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 merge. After Midnight 0001 10:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use hieroglyphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge to Category:User Egyp, convention of Category:Wikipedians by writing system, see also List of ISO 15924 codes. -- Prove It (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Scottish English

[edit]
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 - relisting with the suggestions brought forth in this discussion. - jc37 06:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-gb-sct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User en-sc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge; either direction is fine, I have no preference either way, but clearly we don't need both. -- Prove It (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the duplicate en-gb-sct back into the original en-sc (which the creator of en-gb-sct had depopulated by editing the User pages of the relevant editors, without the merest attempt at discussion, and despite protest; they then applied the "db" speedy deletion template to all the original cats). --Mais oui! 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responsible for doing the exact same thing in WP:DEAF. There are only three wikipedians who speak Scottish English and use the userboxes, unlike the more than 60 users of American Sign Language for whom I edited their userpages to reflect the change from {{User ASL}} to {{User ase}}. See below. Taric25 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Either direction would be acceptable, although on balance I am supportive of Mais oui!'s idea to Merge the duplicate en-gb-sct back into the original. "English-British-Scottish" in a userbox is an absurd mouthful and so far as I can see not consistent with other userboxes. We don't have 'English-American-Canadian' for example. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have American English as {{User en-us}}, Canadian English as {{User en-ca}} and Californa English as {{User en-us-ca}} based on the same principal. See below. Taric25 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the original en-sc per Mais oui! Unacceptable of whoever did that. Astrotrain 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging {{User en-sc}} to {{User en-gb-sct}} is to standardize the template with the rest of the dialect userboxes by verifying it with a reliable source, acceptable by WP:V. If you still disagree, see below. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keeping the original seems the best option, since there seems no real reason for the creation of the duplicate, and it is a mouthful. Lurker (said · done) 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for its creation is to standardize the template with the other dialect userboxes. If you still disagree, see below. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To en-sc.MRM 11:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give a reason for your choice. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The move to the en-gb-sc was done unilaterally with no attempt at consensus. Sc may not be an ISO standard, but it is an abbreviation for "Scotland" which surely needs no verification. If the Saychelles want SC, then why not SCO?MRM 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was just thinking about that yesterday, and I would be happy with "sco", since that is the ISO 639-2 for the Scots language. (See List of ISO 639-2 codes#S.) Remember, we did nearly the same thing with Cantonese Chinese, since it used to be the ISO 639-1 for Chinese "zh", followed by the ISO 639-3 for Cantonese Chinese. May I suggest that we compromise by using "en-sco" instead of "en-sc"?
  • Merge to en-sc. There is no such language as "British" and the whole thing is a far too much of a mouthful with it. SFC9394 12:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    British English is a dialect of English, and we have {{User en-gb}} for it. See below. Taric25 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to en-gb-sct. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, I was responsible for moving the old {{User ASL}} to the new {{User ase}}. Why? ASL is the acronym for American Sign Language used by the Deaf community, however, it is neither any sort of ISO code nor standardized language/geographic code. We could have gone with {{User sgn-us}}. Sign Language has no two–letter ISO 639-1, "sgn" is the three–letter ISO 639-2 for "Sign Language" and "us" is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for "United States", however, we chose to go with "ase", because that is ISO 639-3 for American Sign Language. Even though most of the Deaf community has never heard of "ase", we chose the standard language code based on the ISO. I was then responsible for overhauling the templates and categories from ASL to ase, editing over 60 userpages to reflect the chage, and then posting the ASL categories for deletion. The same story goes for Cantonese Chinese. In this case, Chinese does have a two-letter ISO 639-1: "zh". However, Cantonese Chinese has a ISO 639-3: "yue". So, we changed {{User zh-yue}} to simply {{User yue}}. Both of these examples benifit from having their dialects listed in ISO 639-3. Other dialects are not so fortunate. The ISO 639-1 for English is "en". American English is not listed in ISO 639-3, thus the ISO for American English is the ISO 639-1 for English (en) followed by a dash (-) and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for the United States (us): en-us. In response to User:Ben MacDui, for California English, the procedure is the same, the ISO 639-1 (en) followed by the ISO 3166-1:US for California (us-ca): en-us-ca, not en-ca, since that would be Canadian English. In response to User:SFC9394, for British English this is "en" followed by the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for the United Kingdom: gb. (Not "uk", as that is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD), not the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). Thus, Scottish English would be "en" followed by the ISO 3166-1:GB for Scotland, however, there is no ISO 3166-1:GB for Scotland, but the BS code (listed in ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes) is "sct". Therefore, Scottish English is en-gb-sct, not en-sc, since that would be "Seychellois English", since the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for Seychelles is "sc". Yes, they do speak English (and French) in Seychelles (pronounced "say shells"), and I don't think Seychellois Wikipedians would be very happy if they decided they wanted to make userboxes for their dialect only to find out Scottish Wikipedians had already taken it. The reason I didn't already create userboxes for Seychellois English is I am not a member of the Africa WikiProject. I just wanted to arrange it correctly, should a Seychellois Wikipedian decide to make such a userbox, however, since we have arrived at this debate, I think that it's imparitive that we need the Seychellois English userboxes if nothing else than to prove why we must have Scottish English as "en-gb-sct". Taric25 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, are you all already aware that we already have the userboxes {{User sco}} for the Scots language and {{User gd}} for Scottish Gaelic? Taric25 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ISO 3166-2:GB is a set of codes for the administrative subdivisions of the United Kingdom. It has nothing whatsoever to do with languages.
    You have behaved in a thoroughly disgraceful manner throughout this whole episode. Note to closing admin: Taric25 has just gone round the Talk pages of a load of Seychelles-related editors trying to vote stack this discussion. --Mais oui! 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that myself - Taric has posted to 14 user talk pages in a very clear bad faith stacking attempt. This really is an appalling way to conduct a "discussion". Any views from here on should be double checked to see what the motivation is. In my years here I have never witnessed someone acting in such a bad faith manner surrounding this entire situation. SFC9394 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not bad faith to invite users from other countries to discuss any debate. I am trying to form a more objective debate by inviting users other than just Scottish Wikipedians. Do you think it's fair that this debate is posted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa? I posted this there to allow active Wikipedians in both projects to come to a Consensus, however, without even so much as asking me on my talk page first, you have accused me of bad faith, in direct violation of a Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Per the guideline, if you need to criticise me, discuss my actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse me of harmful motives.
    My entire motivation for moving {{User en-sc}} to {{User en-gb-sct}} is to verify the information with a reliable source: ISO. "sc" is not any sort of standardized code for Scotland at all. Per ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes, the code for Scotland is "gb-sct" just as the code for California is "us-ca". You believe that "sc" is the correct code for Scotland? Fine. What reliable source do you have to verify that? Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any proof by any verifiable, reliable source whatsoever that "sc" is any sort of code for Scotland? Encyclopedic content must be verifiable by a reliable source. ISO 3166-2 is the very basis of what we catalog dialects. For example, {{User en-us-ca}} is California English, based on ISO 639-1 for English (en) and ISO 3166-2:US for California (us-ca). Do you have any evidence that "sc" is any sort of code for Scotland?
    In addition, there is no reason for you to claim I "have behaved in a thoroughly disgraceful manner". I am not the one who violated the 3RR. In fact, I reported you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR viewable at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive56#User:Mais oui! reported by User:Taric25 (Result:48 hours). The admin, User:Sam Blacketer, wrote "Clear violation. 48 hour block for Mais oui! due to previous edit-warring blocks, and aggressive talk page edits." In addition, the admin also wrote "This is longer than a normal block because of your previous blocks for edit-warring, and because some of your comments to Taric25 are aggressive." here on your talk page. Per that admin's advice to take a step away from the dispute, I waited 4 days before taking any more action. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like User:Taric25 decided to canvas several editors for this discussion. In reading over his posts, and that page, I don't think he technically did anything wrong with his "friendly notices". I am wondering at the accusatory responses that he's been receiving in this discussion. My apologies if I am misrepresenting anyone's comments, but even if he's misguided in naming convention (see below), it's rather surprising to me to see several editors who I have come to respect to be treating another editor this way. It's as if I should be reading about some vandal or something. And I'm just not seeing that. I really would like to Assume good faith of all sides here, and hope that everyone else in this discussion would do the same.
  • As for questions: Is there an iso language abbreviation for the Scottish language/dialect? If so, this discussion likely just became a speedy rename discussion. If not, then who decides what the abbreviation should be? Should one editor's bold creation have more weight and favour over another's? Probably not. Hence this discussion, which should (hopefully) determine the consensus of what the editors agree on what the arbitrary choice of abbreviation should be.
  • There are comments that the GB-SCT code is a location code, rather than a language code. Is there any reason to not defer to that, since it's at least an "official" code? If so, what are the reasons? Are there any other "offical" abbreviation standards?
  • As an aside, I am wondering if a larger part of this discussion has more to do with the Scottish independence movement, or at least a sense of nationalism, and as such, a preference to not have GB (an obvious abbreviation for Great Britain) in the abbreviation?
  • In all, to be most direct, I am asking for verifiable sources/references/citations, so that I might better understand the comments laid out here, in order to determine what the concensus is, rather than what it might "appear to be". Positive, constructive comments are obviously most welcome. - jc37 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it's rather surprising to me to see several editors who I have come to respect to be treating another editor this way." See contribs for a full history, but in summary Taric unilaterally decided with no discussion to make the change, edited peoples user pages and then nominated the templates/cats as speedy delete empty - I and others contested - Taric got someone blocked for 3RR - admin correctly comes by speedy delete tags and says it is a matter for CFD - 4 days latter Taric is back, edits the cats on peoples user pages again (despite knowing fully well that they disagree) and nominates the cats for speedy delete because they are empty - despite the fact that it is crystal clear the deletion is contested - bad faith, pure and simple. Discussion did not take place - at all stages we were simply "informed" of what was happening - see Category talk:User en-sc-N for the only "discourse" I observed from Taric before it arrived here. The canvassing of editors is very specific and very targeted to suit the argument the editor is perusing (an argument that was never raised before yesterday, it must have been dreamt up in the meantime). In addition what we now see is the editor questioning every view that each editor posts (if it disagrees with his own) which is just annoying folks even more (hence WaltCip's comments above) - and as an aside I don't appreciate condescending comments like "(pronounced "say shells")" - I am not a five year old kid, and I don't appreciate editors who chose to enter discourse treating everyone else like they are. If any more comments are required I will be back later in the day, I have no vested interest, I don't use the userbox or the category - I just don't like to see the good practices of wikipedia undermined in the way that Taric has attempted in this situation. SFC9394 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to at least the first comment/question. The first part of your comments seem to fall under Wikipedia:Be Bold. Though once the bold edits were contested, I would agree that discussion would have been the better course to follow. (Which apparently led to this result.) However, this discussion is now about the categories, and not the user's actions before this discussion. And an editor is welcome to attempt to positively respond to comments. Yes, some editors feel that it's more like spamming a discussion, but if it truly is a discussion, then obviously he's welcome to comment, and question, and respond to each and every comment. Just as every commenter is welcome to ignore his comments/questions/requests. So the user aside, do you have any thoughts or responses to my other questions concerning the categories? - jc37 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does any of that have anything to do with why "sc" is the code for Scotland and "gb-sct" is not? Per WP:NPA, I would like for you to concentrate on the issue, not me. Do you have any reliable source that you can use to verify "sc" is the code for Scotland? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I indended my notifications to African Wikipedians an invitation to the discussion, per "Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices". I notified less than 15 Wikipedians and their project talk page about this discussion, and if you read what I wrote, I did so in an unbias manner, asking them to simply take a look at the discussion. I was not secretive, as all my notifications were done on Wikipedia, not via IM, e-mail, etc. I have been accused of bad faith and told not to stuff beans up my nose by being told not to make a personal attack, however, no one so far has presented a verifiable, relaible source to support their issue. Instead, I agree with jc37, and I feel these actions are agressive. I would just like to talk about the issue of why we should use one code over the other. Please, can we just talk about that, instead of the actions of editors and what we believe their motivations are?
  • Actually, I was just thinking about an ISO for a Scottish language yesterday, and there is an ISO for the Scots language: "sco" per ISO 639-2. (See List of ISO 639-2 codes#S.) I agree with User:Morrismaciver; "If the Saychelles want SC, then why not SCO?" Remember, we did nearly the same thing with Cantonese Chinese, since it used to be the ISO 639-1 for Chinese "zh", followed by the ISO 639-3 for Cantonese Chinese. May I suggest that we compromise by using "en-sco" instead of "en-sc"?
  • I have found no other code for Scotland, besides "gb-sct", and I do not know of any reason to not defer to it.
  • As this discussion continued, I also began to wonder if this discussion was really about just not having "gb" stare Scottish Wikipedians in the face due to their Scottish pride. I began to believe that Scottish Wikipedians do not need to be reminded that they are a part of the United Kingdom, just as Puerto Ricans do not need to be reminded that they are a part the United States. (Although, Puerto Rico is special, since they have both an ISO 3166-1 code, "pr", and an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, ISO 3166-1:US, us-pr, whereas Scotland only has an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, ISO 3166-1:GB, "gb-sct".)
  • What I wanted all along is to verify this information with a relaible source, and that is what I am asking other editors to do. Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a brief (I could expand - but life too short) explanation of my strong objections to the actions of Taric25, please see User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Speedy_deletions_of_Scottish-related_categories. In particular please note my complaint about Taric25 going round emptying the cats (with, note, ZERO discussion/consultation) by editing User pages, and then in total bad faith applying the "db-catempty" template - thoroughly dishonest, not least because they must be empty for at least 4 days before that template can be used.
  • Just something that people may wish to consider here: these are User templates regarding a variety of language. As such they are a somewhat personal, and therefore sensitive, topic; and language is a cultural trait, that frequently bears no correlation to modern political boundaries (eg. "Scottish English" existed for centuries before the invention of the United Kingdom).
  • In regard to the accusation that it may be political persuasion that is motivating people's opinions here: Scots (and thus Scottish Wikipedians) are a very diverse bunch of folk. We hold every sort of stance on the constitutional issue. Do not patronise us, or try to pretend to yourself that we are all a homogeneous bunch of raving nats. Please have a very, very careful read of WP:NPA - you may want to ca' canny with the gross generalisms. --Mais oui! 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, concerns about the previous actions of the user really should have nothing to do with this discussion. My comment/question was just one of surprise at what I was/am seeing. But let's leave that to some other more appropriate Dispute resolution page. As for the rest, you may wish to re-read what I said, and note that it was a question (note the question mark) and not a statement. And I think you are presuming much about me with your statements. Also, thank you for answering some of my other questions with this statement: "As such they are a somewhat personal, and therefore sensitive, topic; and language is a cultural trait, that frequently bears no correlation to modern political boundaries (eg. "Scottish English" existed for centuries before the invention of the United Kingdom)." - Please clarify if I am misunderstanding, but in other words, your main complaint is the usage of "GB" since it refers to Great Britain/United Kingdom, which you feel is inappropriate in this case due to predating the current political entities? - jc37 10:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (De-indent) This is not my field of expertise, but that is pretty much what is said at Scottish English i.e. "Scottish English is the result of language contact between Scots and English after the 17th century". In other words unlike Californian English, which is a derivative of American English, Scottish English pre-dates modern 'British English'. This, in my understanding would be, for example, why there is no such thing as a generic 'British accent'. All such accents are either Welsh, English, Scots Irish etc. There may of course be also sorts of other reasons for wishing to have (or not have) 'gb' in the code, but the political circumstances should presumably be subservient to the derivation of the tongue in question. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is so the case, then we can use the linguistics of the Scots language ISO "sco" instead of the geographical ISO "gb-sct". I agree that not wishing to (not) have the "gb" is less notable per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Would you agree to compromise by using "sco" instead of "sc", since that is the ISO for the Scots language? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, we should be focusing on the issue of how users can verify "sc" is the code for Scotland with a relaible source, not me. If Scottish English predates current political powers in that area, then would it be ok to use "en-sco" instead, since "sco" is the ISO 639-2 for the Scots language? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, how does any of this verify that "sc" is the code for Scotland with a relaible source? If you feel that "'Scottish English' existed for centuries before the invention of the United Kingdom" and "As such they are a somewhat personal, and therefore sensitive, topic; and language is a cultural trait", then is the real reason you do not want to see "gb-sct" as part of your Scottish English userbox because it has "gb" in it and because you believe that Scottish self–identification should show a seperation from the United Kingdom? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Scottish English pre-dates modern 'British English" That is the absolute basic point - grasp that point and you grasp the issues that exist across a wide swath of situations. Additionally, I am getting fed up with the view being held that the desire for respect or acknowledgement of the status of Scotland before 1707 is part of some nationalistic independence movement. Not only is it really wearing very thin, but it is basically BF. Scottish english pre-dates 1707, it is not a derivative of the state of Britain - thus it should not be stated as if it is - what that is, in plain factual terms, is misrepresentation. As a post script (and this is probably worthy of an essay at some moment when I have free time as I have seen far too much of it of late) I am getting a bit fed up of what I term the "officialisation" of wikipedia. When the chips fall on any discussion people scramble for their nearest "official status" or "iso code" to "prove" that this "must" be what is stated. The question has to be asked here - who is writing wikipedia - hard working editors who come to an agreement through discussion and consensus via the core policies we have in place - or is is a unidentifiable, unattributable, unaccountable group of bureaucrats who produce something with the word "official" or "iso" on it? When that is the case then the effect here is to use such content to attempt to smother any debate - the words official get banded about like it has been handed down from the heavens and cannot be disagreed with. As I say, I have seen a lot of it of late, particularly in content disputes (across a wide range of issues), and it strikes me that we are in danger of becoming not a encyclopaedia that represents the agreed upon view produced by a large body of editors, but a sanitised, iso'ised version of reality - where anything that exists out with "official" sanction is denied and destroyed. A little bit too 1984 for my liking. SFC9394 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does any of that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Your comment discusses what you believe Wikipedia should be. That exactly what Wikipedia is not: a soapbox. If you believe that we should publish whatever "hard working editors who come into an agreement" decide, then go write an essay. Get the Wikipedia community behind you, and re–write Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources so that you can publish what ever you like, rather than what we can verify with a relaible source. Until then, encyclopedic content must be verfiable with a reliable source. "gb-sct" is the ISO for Scotland. If you believe that Scottish English is irrelevant to its current political status and that it is tied to the Scots language, then may I suggest "sco", the ISO for the Scots language, instead of "sc"? Taric25 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not misrepresent my views - I said nothing about publishing unverifiable views, I did add a lot of comment on people trumpeting "official" as a term that should overrule everything in its path. As for the rest - I think it was summed up nicely by Kbdank71 in his edit summary - "nothing says we need to go by ISO. They're just categories for userboxes, for pete's sake". End of discussion as far as I am concerned. The ISO do not define what does and does not exist - and there is absolutely no reason for anything to be moved. Goodbye. SFC9394 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Publishing "sc" as the code for Scotland without verifying a reliable source is to publish an unverfiable view, in other words, original research. For example, User:Morrismaciver's following statement is original research; "Sc may not be an ISO standard, but it is an abbreviation for "Scotland" which surely needs no verification." We can verify the abbreviation for Seychelles is "sc", not Scotlant, per ISO 3166-1, a reliable source. We can also further verify that the abbreviation for Scotland is "gb-sct", per ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes, since we can also consider that the BS code is also a reliable source. All you've done is "comment on people trumpeting "official" as a term that should overrule everything in its path". What does that have anything to do with verifying that Scotland's code is "sc" with a reliable source? You could verify some other standard, like a SIL code, and I would accept that as a reliable source. It doesn't have to be ISO or even offical, as long as you can verify it and the source is relaible. User:Kdbank71's statement "nothing says we need to go by ISO. They're just categories for userboxes, for pete's sake" does not follow other user categories. Just take a look at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who use hieroglyphs. They're using the 4-letter ISO for writen languages: ISO 15924. Taric25 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you all for your comments. Only a clarification, a request, and a question as a follow-up. First, Taric, please learn how to properly thread discussions. Trying to follow what or who you're responding to has become, I'm sorry to say, nightmarish. It's pointless to respond to people, if they can't tell to whom or to what you're responding. Second, My use of the scottish nationalism link was because it was the closest link I could find to illustrate a sense of scottish pride/nationalism/personal identification. I am unaware of previous debates on this topic, so my apologies if the mere link unintentionallly brought up hurt feelings of the past. And finally, as I mentioned in my initial comments, if there is an iso code, current convention is to default to it. And according to ISO 639-2 sco is the code. If not for the contentious discussion above, this would probably become a speedy discussion to merge all to Category: User sco et al. (SC would be inappropriate because it applies to a different language.) However, as I look over the userboxes involved, the two category schemes in question both link to Scottish English, not to Scots language. As such, the obvious solution would seem to be Category:User en-sco (et al) per previous convention as well. Now having noted this, I am still not commenting on the current proposal, but merely showing what has been the case in the past. Though I am curious, are there any concerns about following the iso convention, as well as previous UCFD concensus, in this case? - jc37 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason you may have found it difficult to refactor the discussion is everyone seems to have their own idea of how to indent. Although we all started using "*", some people believe that you follow a "*" with a "**", while others believe you should use ":*", and others still believe that you should use "*:", however, others belive that the "*" be completly removed and we should follow it with "::". In any of these cases, how do you follow up that? With another "*" or ":"? Before or after? I really don't understand why if everyone starts a discussion with all bullets, everyone can't finish it with all bullets. So, I apologize if you found it difficult to read, since I was doing the best I could.
    • I agree that we should merge Category: User en-sc and Category: User en-gb-sct to Category: User en-sco, per previous convention, since Category: User en-sc would be inappropriate because it applies to Seychellois English, a different dialect. Taric25 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is why I want to delete all of the stupid, nationalistic categories of English on Wikipedia. There is no such thing as Scottish English, nor is there any such thing as British English, American English, Australian English, South African English, Irish English, Canadian English, Singaporean English, Malaysian English, or any other variety that I missed. Scots (ISO 639-3 code "sco") is not the same thing, and it is already covered under Category:User sco; all of the other variations are a load of hooey. I eventually planned to nominate all of them for upmerge into Category:User en, but this little catfight has brought the issue to a head. User:Taric25 is being unreasonable because I have NEVER seen anyone discussing a Seychellois form of English (in fact, the very term itself, Seychellois, is French, not English), and User:Mais oui! is being unreasonable because until less than a week ago, there was no user category for this at all, and now there are two (there would be none if the sc cat had not been created). This is a perfect example of why userbox creation desperately needs to be dissociated from user category creation. Delete both, and take all of the national variations with them. If both are not deleted, I would prefer to retain Category:User en-sc simply because there are a lot more people who speak English with a Scotch brogue than speak English with a Seychellian accent (whatever that may sound like). At the very least, there is at least an article on Scottish English that describes the accent; there is not an article on Seychellian English, and I doubt that one could be constructed that would survive an AfD. English may be an official language of the nation, but only 4.9% of the population speaks the language. (about 400 people, given the data at Demographics of Seychelles.) It's simply not a valid position to argue. Horologium t-c 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you're unaware, there are such things as Scottish English, British English, American English, Australian English, etc. Notice the blue links? Click on the articles, and you can read all about them. Also, it is not unreasonable that we use "sc" for Seychelles. English is an offical language of the country, so it doesn't matter how many people speak it natively. (Demographic information seldomly includes ESL speakers.) In addition, it's the ISO code, a verifable, reliable source. Also, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I've never heard of it, we can't use "sc" for Scotland just because we've never heard of Seychellois English. Plus, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing, "We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles, so this needs to go too." is not a valid reason for deletion. Have you seen Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages? Taric25 03:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, "we do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this" has no weight when it comes to deletion, so please provide an argument for deletion on the basis of actual policies and/or guidelines rather than the use of a somewhat subjective, "there is at least an article on Scottish English that describes the accent; there is not an article on Seychellian English, and I doubt that one could be constructed that would survive an AfD". Taric25 03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)There are articles about the pronunciation differences and word choices, but the ISO 639-3 system, which currently includes 7,589 languages, identifies precisely three variations of English; English language (ISO 639-3 classification "eng"; we use the ISO 639-1 class of "en" because disambiguation is not required in this case); Scots (ISO 639-3 classification of "sco"); and Yinglish (ISO 639-3 classification of "yib"). No other dialects are recognized by the International Organisation for Standardisation, which is a fairly damning statement in and of itself. I am also quite aware of the overarching languages debate. Anyone who participates in the WP:UCFD discussions is aware of my efforts to clean up and restructure Category:Wikipedians by language, and you might want to review some of the discussions beginning last month (starting on August 17) before you assume that I am unfamiliar with user categorization and languages; I have been far more active in that discussion that you have, with your parochial interest in one version of the language spoken by less than 100,000 people (assuming that every one of the 82,000 people in the Seychelles speaks a grammatically distinct version of English). When discussing languages, the ISO 639 categories are relevant, not the ISO 3166 codes. My argument is neither Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I've never heard of it, which are in any case opinions of a single user in an essay, not Wikipedia policy. And yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages, and have been slowly working my way through it, eliminating unnecessary user categories added by people who create userboxes and insist on adding categories to all of them. I have little or no objection to userboxes, but when the userbox spills into categorization, I am likely to oppose it. Category:Wikipedians by language is unwieldy enough with recognized languages; it doesn't need to be clogged up with more cruft. Before I began nominating cats for deletions and merges, there were more than 70 different categories for English (not including the valid Category:User sco or Yinglish, which still does not have a usercat), and virtually all of them were added by userboxes with appended categories. Horologium t-c 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Horologium, I agree that if kept, we're creating a hybrid name per consensus of this discussion (if consensus can be found). I see that you prefer deletion, but if there is no consensus to delete, which do you prefer? en-sc, en-gb-sc, en-sco, sco, or some other name? And please scroll up to see my initial questions on this (I realise that they may be lost in the many lengthy responses : ) - I'd like to know your thoughts/responses, as well. - jc37 04:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Horologium, if you believe that dialect userboxes have no place on Wikipedia, then you are in the wrong discussion, because that is not the issue of this discussion. The issue is whether we should use "en-sc", "en-gb-sct", or "en-sco". I can verify that Scottish English is a dialect of English with a reliable source. SIL shows that one of the dialects of English is Lowland Scottish. [3] (In Scotland the Scots language [ISO 639-2 sco] is called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic [ISO 639-1 gd] spoken by some in the Highlands and Islands [especially the Hebrides].). I can also verify from the same relaible source that Scots is a seperate language. [4] Also, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#That's only a guideline/essay, "WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy" has no weight when it comes to deletion, so please provide an argument for deletion based on the verification of a reliable source, rather than the somewhat subjective shorthand "cruft", per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it. So if there is no consensus to delete or merge with Scots, which do you prefer (assuming you have a relaible source to verify your choice)?: en-sc, en-gb-sct, or en-sco? Taric25 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Taric, I think at this point I need to respectfully suggest that you might want to chill out. I appreciate your enthusiasm is wanting to find the best name possible, and that there have been some less-than-civil comments in this discussion. But imho, the above post was a bit past the point of WP:AGF. While I have in the past disagreed with User:Horologium on specifics of implementation, I've found he's a well-meaning editor, who appears to be at the very least decently versed in policies and guidelines. He's also been entrenched in the language category organisation discussions, and so would be a good person to ask about the "big picture". His opinion about the national dialect cats is not a non-viable one, it's merely not one that has found consensus. One other thing, commenters in UCFD discussions may indeed suggest something different than what the nominator requests. I hope this helps. - jc37 06:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaidhlig has nothing to do with this, it is a completely separate language related to Irish, Welsh, Breton and Manx and not part of the same family as English, Scots and Doric. Even within Scotland, English varies, influenced by the local language. The English spoken in the South is what is being argued about here, Scottish English as it tends to be influenced more by Scots. In Aberdeen, (I'm sure there's an official name for it, but Aberdonian will do) Aberdonian is heavily influenced by Doric and in the Highlands and Islands, people tend to throw in (what appears to be) random words of Gaidhlig (A Scottish version of Franglais called Highland English). These varieties of English most definitely exist (I'm sure some linguist can do the research to find sources) and although distinct, just like Americans and English people, we can all understand each-other on the whole. For me, the main reasons against the userboxes with the gb are that the country is the UK not Great Britain and it's just too long and messy. I'd not be using the en-sco box myself as I'd be wanting a Highland English one, but am in no position to create the box as I messed up the only one I tried. By the way, this whole topic is becoming massive, it would probably help clarify the situation if someone wanted to list everyone's preferences clearly with no replies or reasons attached (while keeping the bulky bit too).MRM 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We've done that before, and in this case, it sounds like a good idea. I'm going to close this discussion as a "work-in-progess" no consensus, and relist/start a new nomination based on what we've seen here so far. I'll add a link to this discussion, suggesting that it be considered when closing the new one. - jc37 06:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 24

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to N.W.A.

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to N.W.A. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per consensus at this debate, we determined that "Wikipedians who listen to XXX" do not promote collaboration.

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.

September 23

[edit]

Category:User en-0

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 11:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete; why categorize by non-language? See also relevant discussions. -- Prove It (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some way of indicating that a user does not understand English is definitely useful, but a category could only be of practical benefit if there was a reason to search for all users who do not speak English. I can't imagine anyone wanting to do that so agree the category should be deleted. A userbox (or a user/talkpage note to the same effect) ia enough to let those dealing with a particular user know that they do not understand English. WjBscribe 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Categorizing people by what they don't understand is in no way helpful. Per WJB, a userbox or note on the user page is enough. --Kbdank71 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To quote what I said last time, "User categories are to let users find people-Yet I can think of no circumstance when someone would need to seek out anyone who can't speak English. Knowing if someone doesn't speak English is very important, but a userbox can accomplish this without the category. Please tell me what we would no longer be able to do if this category were deleted". VegaDark (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — User language categories should never have "0" levels. Taric25 16:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark & Taric25. Snowolf How can I help? 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The userbox may be useful, but I don't see how the category may be. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:JohnManuel templates

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JohnManuel templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as single-user category. Alksub 01:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 20

[edit]

Category:User dni

[edit]
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 all. After Midnight 0001 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User dni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User dni-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These categories are for speakers of the D'ni language, a fictional constructed language. The language is not an ISO-recognised language and "dni" is actually the ISO 639-3 code for Lower Grand Valley Dani (see Dani people). I propose that we either:

  1. Delete these categories as being too limited in scope to have any substantial collaborative value, or
  2. Merge the subcat into the parent, Rename to something like Category:Wikipedians who understand D'ni or Category:Wikipedians interested in the Myst franchise, and move out of Category:Wikipedians by language.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Public domain license

[edit]
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. This is a toughie for me. I am convinced that this should not be left as is, but I'm going to do nothing for now. I would like to see a restructure of some sort happen to resolve this in the next month or so. If not, I would probably be willing to delete the category at that time. I don't see any point in doing a simple rename now when a restructure or deletion is really what is called for and such work would just cause more wasted work for me and AMbot. After Midnight 0001 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public domain license (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) rename to Category:User public domain release

As per comment at Category talk:Public domain license. "Public domain" is a pseudo license, it is really a release of copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure what else to say... Keeping something that's inaccurate, confusing, and may possibly have legal issues, just because there isn't a "replacement", sounds like an incredibly bad idea. - jc37 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jc37. What is the reason to have a category for this ... that is, for someone to look through users who license some of their contributions into the public domain? I can understand an interest in the contributions (particularly images) of a specific user, but I don't see how this category is useful. Black Falcon (Talk) 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contributors maintain copyright on their contributions, revoking their right to release content under a particular license, or into the public domain, is tantamount to copyright infringement. I see now that there are some problems with this category, but deleting it outright should be out of the question due to legal and ethical concerns. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why does deleting the category amount to "revoking their right to release content under a particular license"? It only means that they can't express that fact through this category; they can still express it on their userpage. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I spoke too hastily, I don't necessarily equate the proposed deletion to revocation, but it does interfere. Since the category is used by multiple templates, which in turn are utilized by hundreds of people, I don't think it is fair to favor deletion over a workaround, like subcategorization. The existence of this category is further supported by the hierarchical basis behind Category:Wikipedia copyright. Deletion would imply that the licensing is invalid, which is an important concern, but also a matter best left for discussion in another forum. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The primary utility of any category lies in assisting navigation, but I can't think of a reason someone might want or need to browse through this type of category. Since deleting the category would still leave the templates on individual editors' userpages, I don't see that it would significantly interfere with release of content under a particular license. Even if a lot of people use only the category and none of the more detailed templates, the vagueness of this category prevents us from knowing exactly what part of their contributions they license into the public domain. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is currently an intersect between users who release all text contributions into the public domain, editors who release "all content" (text & images) into the public domain, and editors who release all minor contributions into the public domain. Any user's preference can be identified by looking at the template used on their userpage, so even if this category is overly vague it remains useful. Its deletion would necessitate the creation of a new category(ies). I think that the best approach would be to keep this category and modify templates to link to several subcats. Note also that this was not intended as a proposal for the outright deletion of the category. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 19

[edit]

Category:User dsrt interest

[edit]
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:User Dsrt. After Midnight 0001 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User dsrt interest to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Deseret alphabet
Nominator's rationale: This is a category populated by a userbox that expresses an interest in the alphabet (not necessarily a knowledge of it). So, it should follow the naming convention of the remainder of Category:Wikipedians by interest. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry folks, every time I try to sort this I get a headache. Please provide some concise discussion else I'll need to close this as no consensus.--After Midnight 0001 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 17

[edit]

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians

[edit]
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. After Midnight 0001 02:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aspergian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome
Nominator's rationale: "Aspergian" is autistic community jargon for people with Asperger syndrome, and is not even a widely-accepted term within that community. szyslak 09:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the name as it is. Groups choose their own name, period. CeilingCrash 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 15

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like 20 on 20

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for people who like a single radio station. Do we want one of these for every radio station? Categories for people who like specific radio stations are too specific to foster collaboration. For things as specific as this, collaboration would be accomplised better just by posting on the article's talk page. If kept, sets precedent for creating thousands more like-categories for other radio stations, which I don't think we want. VegaDark (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 in the Discrimination WikiProject

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Discrimination members, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- Prove It (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC) - As per jc37, I would like to see the WP consulted with a report back here before rendering a decision.[reply]
Notified – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 14

[edit]

Category:Gilehery

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilehery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single-user category. Delete Alksub 00:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Privateer

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Privateer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Does not meet naming conventions, and as this is (probably) a joke it would not be useful to place it in category:wikipedians by profession. Delete Alksub 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ontario Hockey League fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 02:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Ontario Hockey League fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes the following:

Note: A request has been left with AMbot requesting that these categories be tagged.

This is a parent category for fans of individual Canadian junior ice hockey teams. The majority of its subcategories (14 of 20) contain only a userbox but no actual users. We should not preemptively create categories unless we are certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... these categories have been effectively empty since February. Since these are junior ice hockey teams and since there are currently only nine actual users distributed between these 21 categories, I propose that we do one of the following:

  1. Delete all categories as lacking collaborative value.
  2. Selectively delete only the zero-user categories (i.e. those that contain only the userbox).
  3. Upmerge all subcategories to the parent category, which will take care of the issue of overcategorisation and category clutter and also reduce the WP:MYSPACE aspect of specific "fan" categories. The favoured team of each individual user will still be identified by the userbox on their userpage.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User bas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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/upmerge all to Category:User basic. After Midnight 0001 01:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User bas to Category:User basic
Also rename Category:User bas-1 to Category:User basic-1, Category:User bas-2 to Category:User basic-2, Category:User bas-3 to Category:User basic-3, and Category:User bas-4 to Category:User basic-4
Nominator's rationale: "bas" is the ISO 639-3 code for the Basaa language, spoken in Cameroon. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Basic is not a language that is used by any part of wikipedia as far as I know. Therefore these categories are not usefull for collaboration and should all be deleted. Of course, users can continue to add the useboxes to their pages, but there is no need for any categories. --Bduke 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I think Basic is obsolete now. But I'll strike out that comment if there's anyone who can prove it isn't.--WaltCip 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the above comments, I also support deletion. Reducing the number of obsolete categories will make the parent category more navigable and useful for editors. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose deletion. To those who look to the user cats for collaborative use, I can't see how these cats cannot be seen as useful for collaborating on BASIC and its many associated articles. "Obsolete", or even "archaic" does not equal unencyclopedic! Support rename to Category:User basic, per nom. - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Until I read the comment above from jc37, I had no idea there were so many articles on BASIC. In passing I suggest there are far too many, but I want to concentrate on collaboration. For computer languages, this can be in one of two senses. First, there is using the language to support the technical aspects of wikipedia. I do not think BASIC is used for any code here. Second, there is the collaboration on all these articles. The first, if needed, would be helped by knowing how proficient people were with BASIC. Since it is not used, all these categories should be deleted. The second just requires Category:Wikipedians interested in BASIC, so I withdraw my "delete all" above. and suggest that all these categories be merged into Category:Wikipedians interested in BASIC, unless of course someone can show me that a proficiency in programming in BASIC helps Wikipedia. --Bduke 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily disagree that the various proficiency-based numeric prog lang subcats could be merged into the parent of each (though I'm not sure as to the value of such a merge). However, many wikipedians use the babel template for this, and I don't think that we should so fully change the name as to make it less compatible with the template (or with the other programming cats). So first choice is to rename all as I noted above, second choice would be to upmerge all to Category:User basic. - jc37 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if you do not like Category:Wikipedians interested in BASIC, upmerge all to Category:User basic. We only need one category. --Bduke 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, to restate: first choice is to rename all to Category:User basic (-1; -2; etc), second choice would be to upmerge all to Category:User basic. I am strongly opposed to "interested in". - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to Category:User basic (first choice) or Rename All as per nom. I, too, do not support the idea of moving these into the user interest categories, because they indicate a specific knowledge, rather than a general interest, and because there is no reason to move it out of a category that includes every other programming language, simply because it is not commonly used at this point. It's pretty obvious that I am all for deleting excess categories, but I see the utility of this category. (I don't necessarily agree with the babelization of it, but that is easily addressed by an upmerge. Horologium t-c 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to Category:User basic. I dropped the suggestion of the user interest title, as it was clear there was no consnesus. Nevertheless indicating a specific knowledge of a programming language is only important id that language is used on wikioedia and thus it would help the project. That basis is not now commonly used should not be a consideration. I have scored out some of my comments above to clarify my position now this nomination has been relisted. --Bduke 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User for-N

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User for-N into Category:User for-4
Nominator's rationale: 'Native' categories do not make sense for programming languages (in this case, Fortran). I suspect that the intent was to convey the idea that these users are experts in the language. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom, or delete, as per jc37. I strongly oppose deleting all of the Fortran cats, because while it may not be used for Wikipedia, there are a number of articles where knowledge of Fortran would be helpful, as it was widely used during its heyday. Since this is a specific "Knowledge" cat (as opposed to "I use Windows XP" or "...Mac OSX" or "...Amiga OS"), it might very well be useful for someone creating or expanding an article about a specific application. Horologium t-c 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you do not like Category:Wikipedians interested in Fortran, so be it, but I see no reason to have a whole range of categories. Why would someone in Category:User for-4 be more usefull for editing an article than someone in Category:User for-3. I now suggest we rename this one to Category:User fortran and then later propose that the others be merged there. I still have doubts about the value for collaboration. I have programmed in Fortran for over 40 years and still do so on a regular basis, but I see no reason to add myself to any of these categories. I have edited dozens of articles on programs written in Fortran but a knowledge of the language has never been important. It is the methods and the purpose of the code that matters. --Bduke 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am all for merging the cats into a single cat, but your earlier suggestion was for outright deletion of all of them, to which I am opposed. I think that merging the subcats of each programming language into single cats is a good idea, but it appears that a consensus was developed to use Babel conventions for the programming cats. If consensus has changed, that is a good thing, but I don't want to delete all of the Fortran cats. Horologium t-c 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Babel conventions are fine for real languages as expertise is needed for translation. It is appropriate also for computer languages that are used on the technical side of wikipedia and mediawiki, but this does not apply to Fortran. --Bduke 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User re

[edit]
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 all to Category:User regex (et al). Several have made it clear that this is useful for those who use WP:AWB, and as such it shouldn't be deleted. However, it obviously needs a rename for clarity, and "regex" is used in the article "Regular expressions". - jc37 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User re to Category:User regex
Nominator's rationale: According to the article "regular expression", regular expression is shortened to "regex". Unlike the regular language categories, programming language categories need not be limited to 2-3 letters, and I think that "regex" is less ambiguous than "re". – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Alittihad fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Alittihad fans to Category:Wikipedian Al-Ittihad (Jeddah) fans
Nominator's rationale: There are at least four football clubs named Al-Ittihad, see Al-Ittihad. The userbox which populates this category makes clear that this category is for the Saudi Arabian club. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 13

[edit]

Category:23rdian Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:23rdian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not particularly useful, no collaborative value. Picaroon (t) 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 12

[edit]

Category:User fortepiano

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge all by level. After Midnight 0001 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories should either be renamed to conform to the convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument, merged into the corresponding "pianist" categories, or merged into a single "fortepianists" category (the four nominated categories contain only ten users).

I think two questions are relevant to choosing the appropriate option:

  1. In terms of the collaborative potential of these categories, is there any substantial difference between a piano and a fortepiano?
  2. Is there any use, in terms of facilitating collaboration, to subdividing users by their proficiency in playing the fortepiano?

– Black Falcon (Talk) 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say that any fortepiano player can play a piano, but not every piano player can play every fortepiano (if it has hand buttons instead of pedals, say). I consider this distinction to be pretty meaningless, however, and would suggest they be merged into Wikipedian pianists-(X).--Mike Selinker 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge each to the same level of pianists - While the fortepiano is a specific instrument distinct from the modern piano, this is more an affectation of music teachers to call the modern piano by an older name. See also this discussion. I think we should turn all of these into category redirects. - jc37 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User tangent piano

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 upmerge. After Midnight 0001 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories should either be renamed to conform to the naming of the parent category (Category:Wikipedian tangent piano players) or, given that there are only 3 users distributed among the 5 categories (all in the lower-proficiency categories), upmerged into the parent category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As has often been said, collaboration need not be direct, but may be indirect as well. Else Wikipedia wouldn't have such things as admins, vandalism/new page patrollers, and for that matter, user pages. - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User VG-3

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 upmerge. After Midnight 0001 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User VG-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The parent category of this category was recently renamed to Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors (see September 7 discussion). So, I propose that we do one of two things with this category (and its associated templates):

  1. Merge this category into the parent by modifying Template:User VG-3 and similarly edit the remaining templates (Template:User VG, Template:User VG-1, and Template:User VG-2).
  2. Rename to Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors-3 and edit the remaining templates to categorise in Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors, Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors-1, and Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors-2, respectively.
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 Watch animals from their POV

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be useless. Unsure what this is supposed to even mean. "Watch" is also improperly capitalized. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:User pro

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge/rename all as nominated. After Midnight 0001 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "prolog" is the less ambiguous option ("pro" could be confused with 'professional'). See the discussion below this one for context. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User prolog

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 close, reopen to propose a reverse merge (see above). – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User prolog into Category:User pro
Nominator's rationale: The two categories are redundant (both for users who are familiar with Prolog). I am proposing merging "prolog" into "pro", rather than the reverse, because the latter category was created earlier and is more complete, containing 4 subcats. However, it may be worth considering a reverse merge since "prolog" is less ambiguous, whereas "pro" could be confused with 'professional'. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 11

[edit]

Category:User dv-mahl

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User dv-mahl into Category:User dv
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for speakers of Mahal, which is nothing more than a regional dialect of Dhivehi. It is not a distinct ISO-recognised language and the category contains only one user (both userpages belong to the same user). There is no utility in having separate categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Another vanity creation. Horologium t-c 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 10

[edit]

Category:User didgeridoo

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To conform to the title of the parent category, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

September 9

[edit]

Category:User trumpet

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge all as nominated. After Midnight 0001 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian trumpet players). – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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:User tuba-3

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User tuba-3 into Category:Wikipedian tuba players-3
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the parent category, Category:Wikipedian tuba players, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Chevy Racing fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedian Dodge Racing fans and Category:Wikipedian Ford Racing fans
These categories do not foster collaboration. Despite the titles of the categories and the fact that they are subcategories of Category:Wikipedian auto racing fans, they are populated entirely by userboxes that state: "This user is a Chevy/Dodge/Ford fan". In essence, the userboxes (and thus the users in these categories) merely express a liking toward one of three common brands of vehicle. Expressions of this type of preference do not require categories. Please note that I am not nominating three similar categories that focus specifically on auto racing vehicles.

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.

September 8

[edit]

Category:User sme

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge/rename all. After Midnight 0001 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are categories for Northern Sami, which has the ISO 639-1 code "se" and the ISO 639-3 code "sme". Merge/rename to standardise with the rest of Category:Wikipedians by language, where 639-1 codes are (almost) always used in preference to 639-3 codes. Note also that the category for translators is Category:Translators se-en. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:User sitar-1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User sitar-1 to Category:Wikipedian sitar players-1
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the parent category, Category:Wikipedian sitar players, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. Since there is only one user in the category, and the collaborative value of subcategorisation the category may not be entirely apparent, it may be worth considering upmerging to the parent category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User sax-4

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User sax-4 into Category:Wikipedian saxophonists-4
Nominator's rationale: To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian saxophonists). – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This has already been nominated before, along with some other possible musical categories, but no actions seems to have been made, because the discussion was favoring into a delete, thus leaving in no consensus. ~Iceshark7 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the previous discussion was that it had too many disparate categories, and the discussion over potential renames, merges, and deletions was what doomed it. This is more tightly focused, and has the additional benefit of having a precedent set for naming of the musical instrument cats. You had a great idea, but it was too sweeping in scope at the time. You were ahead of your time. (grin) Horologium t-c 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Manchester City fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian Manchester City fans into Category:Wikipedian Manchester City F.C. fans
Nominator's rationale: The scope of the two categories is identical; however, the title of the nominated category deviates from the article title (Manchester City F.C.) and does not conform to the general naming convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User Autoit Script

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User Autoit Script to Category:User autoit
Nominator's rationale: To drop the unnecessary "script" and per the convention of most subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by programming language. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User ASP-1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User ASP-1 to Category:User asp-1
Nominator's rationale: To conform to the capitalisation of the parent category, Category:User asp. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User mpl

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User mpl to Category:User maple
Nominator's rationale: To conform with the title of the template, {{User maple}}. Also, "mpl" is the ISO 639-3 code for Middle Watut (see Watut languages), so renaming will avoid any possible confusion. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 7

[edit]

Category:Wikipedian Bendigo Bombers fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for fans of the Bendigo Bombers, an Australian rules football club, that contains a userbox and an article talk page (which shouldn't be there) but no actual users. Even the creator of the userbox and category is not in the category. We should not preemptively create categories unless we're certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... this category seems to have been effectively empty since September 2006.

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 Binghamton Mets fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for fans of the Binghamton Mets, a minor league baseball team, that contains two userbox directory pages but no actual users. Even the creator of the userbox and category is not in the category. We should not preemptively create categories unless we're certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... this category seems to have been effectively empty since July.

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 Arbil FC fans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for fans of Arbil FC that contains a userbox and a userbox directory page but no actual users. Even the creator of the userbox and category is not in the category (and, as far as I could tell, has never been in it). We should not preemptively create categories unless we're certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... this category seems to have been effectively empty since March.

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:Babylon fr

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 00:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Babylon fr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This claims to be a category for users who are willing to translate articles from Spanish. However, the category contains the code "fr" for French. The category's single member, User:Jmfayard/User1 is a page requesting translation from English into French. Since this category includes one user (who's been inactive for several months), involves translation from English rather than to English, and seems to have been created to support a test page, I am not suggesting a rename to Category:Translators en-fr.

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.

September 6

[edit]

Category:User recorder

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian recorder players). – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 high school students

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian high school students - Per the recent closure of the Wikipedians by HS UCFD, this cat should also go. If kept the introduction/inclusion criteria really needs to be re-written. (Note that this nom does not include Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians.) - jc37 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 5

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers - (See also this, this and this.)
There are currently (at least) 4 Mac-related categories:
The computer cat was the only subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by personal computer. (Which I deleted after moving the Mac cat to Category:Wikipedians by operating system.)
I think we should either delete the first cat, or the latter 3. Either option would still retain one or more categories which would be potentially all-inclusive of all Mac users. I think retaining the latter three is more specific to topic, and would also thus be more useful to collaborative efforts.
Incidentally, I previously restored the last cat from its merging, to join the other two operating system cats, based on some recent discussions about other hardware-related categories (such as by keyboard, processor, and Tablet-PCs).
I do not support a merge, since in most cases, there would be no way to definitively know which OS cat would be appropriate. Users may add/re-add themselves to the appropriate OS of their choice. (And obviously the computer hardware-related userboxes shouldn't have the OS (software-related) cats added to them.)
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 use dual boot configurations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations (See also previous UCFD) - While membership may presume technical expertise (presuming someone else didn't set the system up), the usefulness as a category would seem to be rather limited. - jc37 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The category doesn't actually tell us which operating system each user uses and is thus too vague. The alternative to deletion would be to create a separate category for every possible configuration: that's thousands of possibilities, even if we assume that most systems are not compatible with one another. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User xsl

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User xsl into Category:User xslt
Nominator's rationale: These are categories for users who have knowledge of XSL Transformations. The categories are identical in scope, but I think that "xslt" is a less ambiguous title. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User programmer

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are categories for Wikipedian programmers. Since they are not actually "programming language" categories, there is no reason they should start with 'User'. After renaming, create Category:Wikipedian programmers as a parent category. Alternatively, delete all four categories as too vague to be useful. The categories state that the users contained are programmers, but don't specify which programming language(s) they are familiar with.

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:User pt-B

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User pt-B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for speakers of Brazilian Portuguese; it is, in effect, a "dialect" category. However, regional variants of Portuguese are mutually intelligible and the sole user in this category is already in Category:User pt-3, where "pt" is the ISO 639-1 code for Portuguese. The Brazilian variant does not have a corresponding ISO code.

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:User piano

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge all. After Midnight 0001 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian pianists). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:User guitar

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge all. After Midnight 0001 03:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian guitarists). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:User Reach for the Top

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Reach for the Top (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who have participated in the game show Reach for the Top. WP:NOT#MYSPACE and any possible collaborative potential is limited to one article, so collaboration can just as easily take place on the article's talk page.

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:User owns a Pink Ipod

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User owns a Pink Ipod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who own pink iPods. It does not foster collaboration and is essentially a more specialised version of Category:Wikipedians who use iPods, which was deleted per a UCFD discussion (link) in June.

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:User phn

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 - A simple edit to the userbox, categorising to the properly named category (as noted below), leaves this category empty. - jc37 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User phn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who have an understanding of the Phoenician alphabet, as per the userbox. However, it is misfiled (under Category:Wikipedians by language, instead of the subcat Category:Wikipedians by writing system), mis-named (it uses the ISO 639-3 identification for the name, not the ISO 15924 ID for writing systems), and redundant to the properly categorized, properly named Category:User Phnx. Currently, there is one user in the category; he is not in the Phnx cat.

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:User Latn

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Latn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User Latn-3, Category:User Latn-4, Category:User Latn-5, Category:User Latn-N, and Category:Wikipedians who use Basic Latin (contains no users)
These are categories for users who have an understanding of the Latin alphabet. Since the English language uses the Latin alphabet, this categorisation scheme includes all editors and readers of en.wikipedia. All-inclusive categories contribute little or nothing to encyclopedic collaboration. A separate category for speakers of Latin exists at Category:User la.

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:Vector graphics editors (users)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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:Wikipedian vector graphics editors. After Midnight 0001 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vector graphics editors (users) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Wikipedians who use vector graphics editors, Wikipedian vector graphics editors, Wikipedians who edit vector graphics, or similar. ×Meegs 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 10:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC) - Attempting to get more consensus regarding target[reply]
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.

September 4

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use Ligatures

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 21:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for editors who use ligatures, which are basically combinations of multiple letters into a single glyph. This is a fairly minor stylistic preference which is rarely used on Wikipedia. The category does not foster collaboration and there is no reason for an editor to seek out someone that uses ligatures. Moreover, the category currently contains no users, but only a userbox and a userbox directory.

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:User bat-smg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User bat-smg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User bat-smg-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:User bat-smg-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These categories are for speakers of Samogitian, a regional dialect of Lithuanian. Samogitian is not an ISO-recognised language: bat is the generic ISO 639-2 code for "Baltic languages (other)" and smg is the ISO 639-3 code for the Simbali language (in Papua New Guinea). Thus, I suspect that the combination "bat-smg" is made-up. Moreover, all 5 users who appear in the "bat-smg" category already appear in the Lithuanian category (Category:User lt), so no merge is required.

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:User lak

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 all. After Midnight 0001 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are for speakers of Lakota, which has the ISO 639-3 code "lkt" ("lak" belongs to the Laka language in Nigeria). Rename for consistency with the vast majority of subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by language that use ISO codes. The level 3 category may be an appropriate candidate for deletion, considering that it only includes the template and User:ShooterBoy/MoarUserboxes, a page which contains hundreds of language userboxes. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as per nom. Gahhhh, I screwed this one up when I nominated it last month. It was originally "lk", which is also wrong, but I managed to suggest a rename to the wrong thing. Ugh. Horologium t-c 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:User ko-han

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 merge all. After Midnight 0001 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by writing system follow ISO 15924 naming conventions. The appropriate ISO 15924 code for Chinese scripts (including Hanja, which is really just the Korean name for Chinese characters) is "Hani". A separate category for Wikipedians who speak Korean exists at Category:User ko. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:User keyboard-1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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/merge as nominated. After Midnight 0001 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User keyboard-3.

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian keyboardists). – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:User egy

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 Merge per creator request. - jc37 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User egy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:User egy into Category:User Egyp or Category:User Egyp-1
Nominator's rationale: The categories are identical in scope (users who understand Egyptian hieroglyphics), but the former does not conform to the naming convention of Category:Wikipedians by writing system. It is populated primarily/solely by transclusions of Template:User egy-1, so a simple tweak to the template should suffice. I've notified the creator of the userbox in the hope that he or she may be able to tell us which is the more appropriate merge target. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 3

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. After Midnight 0001 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who use the {{User Nice to Newcomer}} userbox, which states encourages niceness toward and patience with new users. There is a discrepancy between the text of the userbox (which encourages niceness) and the category name (which claims niceness). This discrepancy is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the creator of the userbox and category was a new user who was blocked for making legal threats. More importantly, the category is not useful. It does not foster collaboration and there is no reason for anyone to look through it.

  • Delete as nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most people aren't nice to newcomers, no matter what policy states.--WaltCip 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but what role does this category play in that? – Black Falcon (Talk) 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not only a collaborative benefit to this category (via newcomers being able to be assured they can have someone to communicate with), as well as the purpose of categorization, but there is also a psychological benefit. Users who entitle themselves to this category will move towards the act of being nice to newcomers. Once this category becomes full to a point that it is all-inclusive, it can be deleted, having accomplished its goal.--WaltCip 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How likely is it that new users will visit this category as a starting point for contacting more experienced editors? Also, what about the discrepancy between the text of the userbox and the category's title? The userbox calls on others to be nice toward new users; it doesn't actually state "this editor is nice to new users". Finally, despite the fact that the category is not all-inclusive, I don't think anyone would admit to being rude to newcomers. I don't want to badger you to change your viewpoint, but merely want to see the value in the category that you apparently see. In principle, I don't think this is any different from Category:Wikipedians who summarize, which was deleted in July. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. In response to WaltCip, newbies are not likely to use the user categories to find people who belong to this category. They are most likely to encounter it through the userbox on another editor's userpage, which is sufficient to convey the sentiment. What you are talking about is covered by Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users, or its child Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee. The latter has over 450 members in it (480 pages as of this morning), so it's not exactly obscure. (grin) Horologium t-c 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As well as the comments above, particularly in the nom, I dislike the inherent snub to those not "signed-up". And, in contrast to WaltCip, I'd argue that all Wikipedians are nice to newbies, except those who have not yet been sufficiently admonished. --Dweller 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Users who support UNlimited Taiwan

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 CSD G7 (author request). See diff. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who support UNlimited Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who support UNlimited Taiwan, a pro-Taiwanese political movement. It was created "to support the goals of the country" (diff). It is a political support/oppose category that does not foster collaboration and violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Delete per ample precedent for deleting similar categories: see e.g. here, here, here, here, and here.

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.

September 2

[edit]

Category:Hasland Hall Students

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. After Midnight 0001 11:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Hasland Hall, convention of Category:Wikipedians by high school, or Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/September_2007&oldid=1148109698"