Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:50, 26 October 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Speedy nominations

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

New nominations by date

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

October 25

Category:NAUI divers

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who scuba dive, or at least Rename to Category:Wikipedian National Association of Underwater Instructors divers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mystic Wikipedians

Category:Mystic Wikipedians - See Mysticism - "The state of oneness has many names depending on the mystical system: Illumination, Union (Christianity), Irfan (Islam), Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism), Samadhi (Hinduism), to name a few." -This is inclusive of nearly everyone who identifies with a religion. This is waaaay too broadly inclusive. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As already noted, the category's scope is much too broad (e.g. see Mysticism#Mystical traditions); this lack of specificity foils any attempt to try to infer a relationship between identification and knowledge or interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as "Wikipedians interested in Mysticism". There are religious systems which incorporate mysticism, but mysticism still stands on its own as an ideology. Also, such mystic religions have mysticism as a common point of belief, and not just in name. This is especially useful for those who which to contribute to articles about a variety of mystical traditions and mysticism in general, rather than focusing on only one or a few traditions. I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as mystic and those who are interested in mysticism without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Realist Wikipedians

Category:Realist Wikipedians - See Realism <-- Click on the link, and see how really broad and unmanageable this category is. It even covers separate disciplines, such as art, law, philosophy, physics, international relations, literature, and more. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Realism is not a philosophy or an ideology; it is the name of several dozen related and unrelated artistic, literary, philosophical, and political theories, movements, and worldviews. This category simply cannot foster encyclopedic collaboration because it does not express a single affiliation. The label "realist" is so broad that it is impossible to know specifically what information this category is supposed to convey; therefore, it conveys to useful information. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in Political realism", as that seems to be the intent. See the article for details. Also, reparent under Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, as suggested by Black Falcon in the old discussion for Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bright Wikipedians

Category:Bright Wikipedians - recently turned into a redirect to:

Category:Wikipedian Brights - Brights movement

"The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view." - Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. Oppose renaming to "interested in -ism", as nowhere near the category's intent. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the re-direct only but not Category:Wikipedian Brights. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement or possibly Category:Wikipedians interested in Brights, though I prefer the former. This category may have a limited scope, but it still has value for collaboration. Also, the fact that "Brights movement" and "New age movement" both have the word "movement" in them does not imply a connection. Compare "bowel movement" and "orchestral movement". I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as Bright and those who are interested in Brights without identifying as such. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians

Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians - "Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death." - Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Transhumanism, and recat. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, those who so self-categorize are likely to have an interest in, and knowledge of, the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist Wikipedians

Category:Surrealist Wikipedians - Surrealism - art movement. Broad cultural movement, similar to New Age Wikipedians, which was recently deleted, as shown here.- jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism, and recat. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - it's hard to conceive of someone describing themselves as a "surrealist" without having some (potentially useful) knowledge of surrealism. bd2412 T 07:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians

Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians - Neorealism - A political ideology. The political ideology cats were deleted, as shown here. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marxist Wikipedians

Category:Marxist Wikipedians - a political ideology. The political ideology cats were deleted, as shown here. Note that one of those deleted was "Marxian Wikipedians". - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. This is a political ideology category and essentially a copy of the misnamed Category:Marxian Wikipedians, which was previously deleted. The concerns remain the same as before: this type of category has the potential to be divisive, may assist POV-pushers (by providing a grouping of editors of a certain viewpoint), and serves primarily as a userpage notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist Wikipedians

Category:Feminist Wikipedians - a political ideology. The political ideology cats were deleted, as shown here. And for WP:ALLORNOTHING fans out there: As "Masculist Wikipedians" was deleted, so too should "Feminist Wikipedians".. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, political ideologies have no place in the user categories. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion on political ideology cats. Lurker (said · done) 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bayesian Wikipedians

Rename Category:Bayesian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian methods per Bayesian - Statistical/probability theories and methods. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Bayesian statistics, to match the title of Category:Bayesian statistics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trystero Wikipedians

Category:Trystero Wikipedians - See The Crying of Lot 49. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, it's difficult to imagine a use for this category when it is populated by a userbox that reads "This user believes Wikipedia Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much of an inside joke. Was it really necessary to renominate this? It seemed to be uncontroversially headed for deletion in the original discussion. bd2412 T 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians

Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians - The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)#Reception_and_fandom - I suppose it's comparable to being a Trekkie/Trekker who reveres James T. Kirk. - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. If no consensus to delete, Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television). - jc37 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If no consensus to delete, merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too narrow to be useful. bd2412 T 07:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Wikipedians by activity (relisted)

Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

Category:Wikipedians who are partially active

These categories were deleted after this UCfD. At a deletion review, the consensus was that the initial close was endorsed, but more discussion was needed on the utility of these categories. Anyone who feels strongly that these categories are useful, and can articulate why, speak up. I will post links to this discussion in a couple of places. Chick Bowen 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by video game

And all subcategories. ~~In process of tagging.~~ All tagged. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a particular video game does not foster contribution and is only helpful for social networking. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles on video games, so it helps to have a place to find people who know about them.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:31, 10/22/2007
Delete all. Verifiability, not truth. Knowing how to play a game has nothing to do with citing sources. --Kbdank71 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the contrary, being interested enough to include a game on your user page indicates that you might have a better idea where to find resources on that topic than most other editors. Krychek 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Might" being the operative word there. Of the ten people in Category:Wikipedians who play Halo, 60% of them have made no Halo-related edits in their last 500. A good amount of the remaining 40% were vandalism reverting, which anyone can do. --Kbdank71 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to wonder, have you performed the same analysis on other categories? If that is your criterion, I imagine most categories would disappear. I've never touched articles on many of my own areas of expertise, but I would probably contribute if asked. Krychek 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I imagine they would. Let me ask you a few questions: if you've never touched articles in your areas of expertise, why do you have the categories on your user page? You got a request to help at the origami portal, did you contribute to that? --Kbdank71 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Even if it allows readers to find editors knowledgeable on various games, how much of Wikipedia's internals is exposed enough to let readers find userpages in the first place? Shadow1 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None, if we delete the categories that are made to help us find them... And it allows editors to find knowledgeable people in order to write better articles, not readers to find people to ask questions to.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:53, 10/22/2007
Delete - Nobody's going to join this category just because they can help other editors collaborate on them. That's what Wikiprojects are for.--WaltCip 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are user categories for then?
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:06, 10/22/2007
  - My position is that user categories should just be deleted and overhauled altogether, but that's another story.--WaltCip 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah that's what I figured. But I think discussions for individual categories should go under the assumption that user categories in general are warranted for the purpose of collaboration. So, for the specific purpose of collaborating on video game articles, this category should stay -- and the assumption that no one will join it in order to collaborate is unfounded.
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:41, 10/22/2007
Strong Keep Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive video games and Category:Wikipedians by video game console. Weak keep the individual game subcats. Several of these have multiple articles. I would support deletion of the single-article video games, however. Would you be interested in splitting the nom? - jc37 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nominator, who said they are only helpful for social networking. As we know, WP isn't for social networking. I further feel these cats don't offer anything constructive to the editing of an encyclopedia, giving that a lot of video games already have their own articles. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As noted before, if the same criteria were applied everywhere, most categories would disappear. Besides, what's the harm in letting people organize themselves by what video games they play?-Link 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also as noted before, being harmless does not preclude a category from being useless and these cats are certainly useless. Further, in case you haven't noticed, most categories ~~are~~ do have the illusion of disappearing. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the last part is not quite accurate. Nearly half of user categories are language categories (i.e. those starting with Category:User) and a deletion nomination of those is sure to fail (in fact, I think one was snowball-kept a few months ago). In addition to those, there are approximately another two thousand user categories which I don't think anyone has any intention of nominating. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A strong group of categories which enables collaboration by subject.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users Who Are Anti-High School Musical

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per precedent of anti-XXX categories and userboxes. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somehow I don't see why we need a category for this. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:22, 22 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:Wikipedians by alma mater:Chatham House Grammar School

Delete, Is grammar school more important than high school? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular grammar school was attended by a prime minister of Great Britain - it was at one time the largest grammar school in England and it's been around since the 1750's - it's pretty notable. SteveBaker 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the school isn't in question. In any event, the equivalent category for King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford) - an even older grammar school - was deleted as a result of the previous discussion. No reason has yet been given why this school should be the exception. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion Lurker (said · done) 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially given unanimous support for deletion of the high school "alma mater" categories. Not that it's a vote, but there weren't any editors voicing an opinion for keeping them. This one should be even clearer. Kestenbaum 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an article on Chatham House Grammar School, and people who go/went there may want to collaborate with others who went there in order to improve it, or to create related articles. This is why we have user categories to begin with. I don't see what makes this one so different; aside from it being small, but that's irrelevant.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:33, 10/23/2007
Delete per precedent as cited by ProveIt, which included deletion of at least one similar grammar school category (Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford)). As was said in the last discussion, those who go/went there and who want to collaborate about the school can do so using the talk page of the school's article if necessary. Bencherlite^Talk 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They might not all necessarily know that the article exists. People add themselves to categories based on which ones apply to them, not with the editing of a specific article in mind. If someone decides to contribute to this article and no one who went to the school is participating in that article yet, the contributor has no way of finding these people. This is exactly what user categories are for. \
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:53, 10/23/2007
  - I'd be very surprised if potential editors didn't know that the article about the school existed, but could still find this category. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Equazacion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Equazacion. User categories are harmless to the main encyclopedia - if it helps editors to collaborate - it's a small price to pay. SteveBaker 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per numerous precedents. Collaboration for the ONE related article can be accomplished on the school's talk page. Horologium t-c 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my previous answer to ProveIt's identical statement.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:54, 10/24/2007
Delete per numerous precedents and Bencherlite. The "harmless" argument isn't particularly convincing. First, being harmless does not preclude a category from being useless. Second, contributing to category clutter, which reduces navigability, is harmful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Collaboration can occur on the article's talk page, If categories were allowed for collaborating on a single article, that would set precedent to allow 2,062,523 categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Bronze Award

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Gold Award and Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Silver Award

Categorisation on the basis of receiving an award does not foster collaboration and is not viable. Retention would set a precedent for every award by every group/organisation. If there is some value in preserving the implied affiliation to the GSA, then merge/rename all to Category:Wikipedians in the Girl Scouts of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 00:28, October 22, 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as nom and per precedent (see here, here, here, here, here and here). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gold cat, Delete Bronze and Silverl. Gold Award is the highest in Girl Scouting and should be kept. It's a very notable achievement. Rlevse 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't dispute your assertion since I don't really know much about the Girl Scouts of America, but what is the purpose of categorising on that basis? Why does the userbox or a userpage notice not suffice to convey this information? I would appreciate any clarification you could provide. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. We don't currently have a similar category for biographical articles; even if we did, it would likely be deleted per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners.[reply]
  - Well, I guess the same purpose as something like Category:People from Grand Rapids, Michigan. I don't see that as important as a US Presidents category either. Rlevse 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allow me to rephrase my question. Category:People from Grand Rapids, Michigan is for articles, whereas the nominated categories are for userpages. The purpose of regular categories is to group articles on the basis of characteristics that define the subject (such as year of birth/death); the purpose of user categories is to group users on the basis of characteristics that foster encyclopedic collaboration (such as ability to translate a language). The question I was getting at (and I apologise for the ambiguity in my comment) is: how does a grouping of users who've received the Girl Scouts Gold Award foster encyclopedic collaboration? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, Equazcion says it better than I could have below.Rlevse 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep gold cat per Rlevse, roughly equivalent to Category:Eagle Scout Wikipedians and represents a great deal of hard work, viable and not divisive. Chris 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute any of your points, but what value does the category hold above and beyond the userbox? How does it help to foster encyclopedic collaboration? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course.Rlevse 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom --evrik ^(talk) 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hate to bring this up again, but this has about as much use as Category:Wikipedian guitarists, only more so -- if you want to find someone who knows about girls scouts, for article info or what have you, who better to turn to than a gold award winner? Heck, that's like having an "expert guitarists" category where you can find the best musicians to record samples. In all seriousness, if other user categories are useful for finding people who know about a particular field, then this is useful for that reason too -- and then some, since it also denotes a level of knowledge/experience, not just an interest. If you delete this for not being useful as a collaborative tool then I say delete all user categories, 'cause if this ain't useful, none of 'em are.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:52, 10/22/2007
- Then how about merging and renaming all of the categories into Category:Wikipedians in the Girl Scouts of America, to match Category:Wikipedians in the Boy Scouts of America? After all, if it is the affiliation with the organisation that is useful, the category name should reflect that. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I already said, that award denotes that the bearer is a better bet for good information than just any average member. It's useful to have the most reliable people in a separate category. You know those article tags that request the attention of an expert in the field? Well, here's how you find your girl scouts expert, should you ever need one.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:04, 10/22/2007

Keep per EquazcionSumoeagle179 10:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that these awards are different than Wikipedian awards (the deletion of which are in some of the examples of precedent above). That said, if we don't categorise people in articles by award, we probably have no need to categorise Wikipedians by them either. (See WP:OCAT#Award winners.) However, as per that guideline, these may be notable enough for categorisation. (And potentially useful for collaboration, as award winners may be more knowledgable about related topics.) So I'm staying Neutral, for now. - jc37 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the gold cat per Rlevse comment above. Also, no harm in keeping them all. R. Baley 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bronze and silver, no opinion on gold for now. VegaDark (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia

Delete, Exactly the opposite of useful for collaboration. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Former Wikipedians per evrik. ~~Delete~~. This is something that is useful to know for a specific editor, but the userpage notice suffices for that; I can think of no reason to browse through a category of retired editors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Utterly harmless; could be useful - if I happen to glance in there and see that someone I know to have covered a certain area has retired, I might keep a closer eye on their contributions. This may occur even if I was not actively looking at userpages for retirement notices. This is almost the same as looking at what is transcluded from the template, except there are bound to be false positives for the template arising from discussion of same. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the template's whatlinkshere provide false positives? All transclusions are clearly marked and, unless there was some sort of bug, would also be categorised. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if it's subst'ed? bd2412 T 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I suppose 'human error' (substing a template that shouldn't be substed), for lack of a better term, could yield a discrepancy. However, when we are at this level of detail, we're discussing not just a casual "glance" but a fairly thorough investigation. Rather than happening upon this category, recognising a username, and taking up an abandoned task, isn't it far more likely that one would notice that a certain area was become backlogged or that a certain editor had stopped contributing, with the discovery of the 'retired' status coming via the userpage rather than a category? A category is really only useful when it is plausible that someone might deliberately browse through it ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18#Category:Wikipedians by active status.2C_Category:Wikipedians_who_are_not_currently active and Category:Wikipedians who are partially active. --evrik ^(talk) 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnt maybe merge the category with: Category:Former Wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was waiting to nominate this until after the closure of the DRV noted above. I'll wait until then to also nominate Former Wikipedians, as well. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think it should be merged regardless. The distinction between "former" and "retired" is not clear enough to merit separate categories. Categorising on the basis of difference in status (active/inactive) is one thing, but categorising on the basis of which userbox an editor happens to use is altogether different. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, but failing that, merge. As I said in the DRV noted above, this category is populated by a userbox, so instead of telling the world you've left twice on the same page (userbox and cat), you're only saying it once. Certainly doesn't help with collaboration. --Kbdank71 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boxer owners

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 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see discussion of Wikipedians by pet. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. The userbox is sufficient to express the affiliation; a category is not needed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per precedent. Similar to the other lifestyle cats. (Boxer cats... Oh, no puns there : ) - jc37 21:42, 22 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.

October 20

Wikipedians by philosophy and subcats

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Closed to be relisted - These "discussions" are becoming the very definition of "disruption". They've devolved into philosophical debate on the relevance of User categories in general, rather than the merely the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. There has been extensive canvassing (the extent of which may have been inappropriate (see Wikipedia:Canvassing.) There have been personal attacks, both here and elsewhere. And just in general this has devolved into a state of Un-Wiki-like actions. Also, due to precedent of such discussions, Since the majority of the comments which actually address the nom have been rename or delete, in absense of actual opposition, the discussions will like be closed that way, rather likely leading to a DRV, and the portential for further disruption. Therefore, I'm closing this, and we can start over as the CIVIL Wikipedians that I know we can be. I will also endeavor to write clearer nomination rationales, which perhaps will aid in the discussion. (As such, please give me some time today to write them.) - jc37 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by philosophy - The majority of these are either related to a single article, or are too broad for inclusion, or both. A few exceptions are those which are fields of study (including religious study), which should be renamed to reflect this. While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an enormous amount of overlap between this category and many of its sub-categories whcih you've nominated individually below. Are you just proposing in this instance to eliminate the meta-category and leave the sub-categories (if they are kept) floating individually? If not, what do you propose to do if this nomination passes while nominations for individual subcategories fail (or vice versa). bd2412 T 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing deleting this category, and either deleting several which are not more than just a single-article-based-belief/philosophy, with a too-broad statement of self-identification; and/or renaming those which are a part of philosophical study (several of which follow a written code of morality/ethics). But as a category, and as a grouping, these are just a bad idea. a philosophy could be religious, artistic, mathematic, scientific, political, etc.

And what's the "cut-off" line for including every possible belief that a person may have?

At the moment, the current ongoing consensus seems to be that self-identification categories should be removed. (Both LGBT Wikipedians and Furry Wikipedians closures have now been upheld at DRV.) And categories which only propose possible collaboration to a single article should also be removed, as someone who may be interested in that article is likely already editing it (or not, as is their choice).

So the nominations are based on those two conventions as criteria.

The groupings below were just to try to group together similar things, rather than just have one large nomination of "delete all". I feel that this will give ample opportunity for those with thoughts and concerns to voice them. (So, for example, if someone may see a reason to delete one group, but rename another, or whatever.)

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These objections about the scope and delineation of membership in categories misses one crucial distinction between user categories and other types--membership is based on our own self-understanding. We put ourselves in these categories. We are both subject and object in these cases. We decide where it is appropriate to 'cut off'. The dilemma is a false. Also, would you explain why it is a problem that a philosophy may refer to more than one specific domain of knowledge. You state that this is a "bad idea" without providing an explanation as to why it is such. DionysosProteus 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be specific in usage, else they are less effective, to possibly becoming useless. As for the rest, "these categories" are renamed, merged, or deleted on a regular basis. As are articles, templates, and so on. If you have concerns with the process, you're welcome to take it to an appropriate discussion page, but atm, you're not addressing this specific nomination. - jc37 13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a response to your raising of the specific objection about the cut-off for categorizing a person's belief. That it also has more general applicability is besides the point. Would you kindly answer the question and explain the reasoning behind your claim that it is a "bad idea", unless the claim about specificy was meant to be that? What is non-specific about "Marxist"? That a philosophy may be applied in numerous disciplines in no way implies a lack of specificy about the intellectual approach. Are you saying that you'd prefer another level of sub-categories? (Marxist economists, Marxist artists, etc.) Wikipedia articles are very often interdisciplinary in nature; it is not unreasonable for user cateogries to reflect that. Atomisation is not an argument. DionysosProteus 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer the question: "Categories should be specific in usage, else they are less effective, to possibly becoming useless.". That aside, I think I mentioned somewhere that this meta-discussion should be discussed on a talk page somewhere else. If this continues, I'll be moving such comments to a talk page, where everyone will be welcome to discuss Wikipedian categories in general, as well as the deletion process on Wikipedia. However this thread is not the appropriate place for that discussion. - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to recognise that I am addressing the specifics of the way in which a wikipedian's belief system impacts on editing practices. Threatening to remove a discussion because you have failed to follow the reasoning is inappropriate. You have also failed to explain in what way a category such as "Marxist Wikipedians" is in any way non-specific, which, you have explained, was what you meant by a "bad idea". You are proposing to delete the by philosophy categories without providing a sufficient explanation of why you consider them "non-specific". DionysosProteus 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reason as above. I dislike the idea that a few people who think these harmful are trying to impose their view on the large group of WPedians who use these categories and think otherwise. It would be fair to notify them individually and hear what they think--perhaps they will say they don't really want or need it and didn't realize it was different from userboxes. I do not use these categories, but I let other WPedians deal with things like this their own way. If it can not be shown to be actually harming the encyclopedia, I would leave such categories alone. I would want for each individual category evidence that it a/is being used primarily for extensive social networking or b/ is being used for the formation of a cabal or an attempt at POV-pushing.
In this particular case, any evidence that those in the philosophy categories are using the categories for social purposes? or to unfairly influence articles? Why use this process to eliminate the innocuous? DGG (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I dislike the idea that a few people who think these harmful are trying to impose their view on the large group of WPedians who use these categories and think otherwise." - This has been discussed a lot in the past, but to summarise: typically user membership is due to placing a userbox. The categorisation is often for "feel good" reasons, and has nothing to do with collaboration. (A case in point is a situation we had with the zodiac cats in the past.) And these are not just a few individual editors. These same discussions have had very few of the same members. This is just like any XfD discussion. The categories are tagged. If someone wishes to show interest, they will.

So I'm not sure that it's constructive or helpful here to make comments in a discussion claiming that your comments are based on not liking the process, the forum for the process, or how the process is currently turning out, rather than on the specific category or categories under discussion. ~~And that goes for all the copy-pasted duplicates of the above comments on down the page.~~ (comments were merged) - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some faulty reasoning in the comment above: "The categories are tagged. If someone wishes to show interest, they will." This presumes that each user that has placed themselves in a category also has that category on their watch list and are aware of the tagging. That is not a reasonable assumption to make. DionysosProteus 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the process of deletion discussions on Wikipedia. If yo uhave issues with that process, feel free to start a discussion on a talk page somewhere. As noted above, this thread is not the appropriate place for it. - jc37 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresent my comment. It was the faulty reasoning behind your assumptions about how other wikipedians relate to that process, not the process itself, that I critised. Just because something is up for deletion and those in the category do not take part in the discussion of its deletion, in no way implies that they are consenting to the process nor are not interested in it. You cannot make that assumption. It is your assumption that is at fault, not the process. DionysosProteus 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for the same reasons as this UCFD discussion and this DRV discussion. Apparently, all of those and this cat have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site, and no one cares what you are or who you support just how you edit. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You do realize that this is a user category, right? What does user "notability" have to do with anything?!? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Most modern critical theory in the humanities recognizes that how one writes is partly determined by the views one holds; a great deal of scholarly criticism makes a point of detailing their author's approach. The same applies to the writing and choices for inclusion or exclusion of material made by editors. These are categories that categorize Wikipedians, so the notability criterion by definition does not apply (if it did, the vast majority of editors in all wikipedian categories would have to be removed). The categories to which I belong relate neither to a single article alone nor are too broad to be meaningful. These categories are a useful way of understanding from where a line taken by an editor is coming; just as it is useful to understand an editor's nationality, or many of the other categories. The suggestion that anyone is attempting to use these categories for the purposes of social networking strikes me as both presumptuous and faintly ridiculous; why on earth would anyone use this when there are plenty of far better forums designed for it? Note also: if the philosophy categories are removed, the religion ones ought to be removed as well. DionysosProteus 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for all the things you want this for ("These categories are a useful way of understanding from where a line taken by an editor is coming;"), a userpage notice - such as a userbox - should be enough. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't provide the same easy access to other editors with the same point of view. (The Fun Destroyers strike again...) Thanos6 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for editors "with the same point of view", is helpful how? - jc37 10:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss the writing of an article, or if the editor has a view opposed to yours, to perhaps amicably settle a dispute that has spilled beyond a talk page's confines. Thanos6 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Canvassing? Depending on the intent, probably not a good idea either. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That not what Thanos6 said. I will assume in good faith that you did not misread that on purpose. . . I’m sure you agree that the constructive discussion of articles of common interest is central to improving Wikipedia and settling disputes. --S.dedalus 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Why should we delete them? They are some way against encyclopedic content in wikipedia? If yes then let's delete all userboxes/categories then... --Enerccio 11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:ALLORNOTHING.) - That aside, I think you miss the rationales for these nominations. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP We have this "philosophy category" witchhunt far too often. Consensus is that Wikipedians want to be identified in this way, and that it is useful that it be possible. -- Evertype·✆ 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE RENAMING as well. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it useful? Does it make you feel good? I've never found a need to look for someone of that type. In fact, I've found them to be quite nasty in the past.--WaltCip 14:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you proudly display that you are one of the Category:Wikipedians who play Halo. How does THAT help the encyclopedia? --S.dedalus 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked more closely, you would see that it is merely a byproduct of using User:Scepia/Halo. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a difference how? I have Category:Atheist Wikipedians on my user page as a result of User:S.dedalus/Richard Dawkins (God). My question remains. How does Category:Wikipedians who play Halo help improve Wikipedia any more than Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. --S.dedalus 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a difference in that WaltCip did not add the category deliberately. In response to your question: it doesn't matter since we're not discussing Category:Wikipedians who play Halo right now (start a separate nomination for that if you would like for the issue to be discussed). If the "Halo" category is no more useful than this category, and this category is not useful (I know you disagree with this claim), then we should simply delete both. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original message was meant as a response to WaltCip's sarcastic attempted refutation. As far as I’m concerned he did intend to add the userbox to his page so he added the category purposely. --S.dedalus 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Evertype) - Could you point me to that consensus discussion? And is it more recent than the recent discussions which would suggest otherwise? - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not keep records of these things. I have seen any number of these Category debates about religious and philosophical preferences of Wikipedians. They always end in No Consensus To Delete. And I object to your having removed my comments on the individual items here. That was a bad faith edit in your part. I do not believe that you are trying to make the Wikipedia a better place. These Categories are in no way burdensome to the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Wikipedia keeps the records for you. And there are archives that you can comb through. I know I've read them often enough. As for some of the previous groupnominations you somewhat remember, the difference is in the reasons for the nominations. Which is something that those in these "discussions" currently seem to refuse to acknowledge. (And by the way, I entreat yo uto take some time reading through, you may find my own comments in such discussions interesting considering your accusations.) As for the merging of the comments, See User talk:Dan Pelleg for an answer I gave about that. In short, there were several editors who were not commenting on the specific nominations, but on user categories in general. I merged all the copy/paste comments to the umbrella nomination, knowing that the closer will take them into consideration when closing the subcat nominations. Merges like that happen for clarity. As for your opinion of me, feel free to follow dispute resolution, if you feel that that's what you should do, but on this page at least, please keep to the topic of the categories under discussion. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you decision to modify user comment in this way jc37. There is a very strong consensus on Wikipedia that, except in a very few circumstances (personal attacks for instance), changing or moving user comments (and especially votes) is disruptive behavior. --S.dedalus 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd suggest that you check out WP:TALK, which explains that "very strong consensus". Second, refactoring a discussion page for readability is fine, though not as common these days. I in no way "changed" what you (plural) said, merely reduced the unnecessary copy/pasting (including my own). You might also note that comments such as "witchhunt" could have caused whole comments to be removed (per that same guideline). - jc37 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - We need to overhaul this cluttered, non-beneficial category system, because it is not serving the original purpose that it was intended for; collaboration, not this silly "identification" tomfoolery. Best we start here.--WaltCip 14:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That userboxes and wikiprojects have some elements in redundancy with the category system does not mean that the latter is redundant. To describe the difference in terms of active/passive modes is a POV description; you could equally say that categories, particularly in their intersections with one another with a particular user, enable a different and complementary means of communication. Membership in a category makes you available to others in a clear and easily-located way. Wikiprojects require a member to keep going to check its talk page for info, requests, etc. It's possible to imagine many instances where such a search would be helpful when working on articles; a shift to "interested in" categorically does not provide the same use; a Fred Phelps-fundamentalist may be "interested in" atheism or evolution, for example, which is not necessarily a useful basis for collaboration in developing the coverage of a particular perspective as part of an article. Most of the arguments offered against the categories so far lack any evidence to support their propositions--where's the evidence that they're being used for social networking? The evidence that they are useful, however, is clear! Wikipedians use them. It's true that the creator of a category may be imposing their own bizarre ideas on the project. But as soon as a great many editors make use of that category, the suggestion that they are not useful is invalidated. There evidence is there in the population of the categories. What makes those opposing think they know better than all those users in the categories how Wikipeda should be used? Patronising and authoritarian. DionysosProteus 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that whole answer, I didn't see how "interested in" is not more useful than self-identification. If anything you argued for "interested in", due to concerns of NPOV and bias. Also, just because several people choose to use a userbox, which also automatically categorises Wikipedians, doesn't mean that those people want/need/support/care about the categories. And further, it doesn't suggest in any way that the categories are being used for collaboration. But then, this is a "meta-discussion" about user categories in general, and not about the current nomination. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Your conception of NPOV is misleading. If I perceive that an article has been rendered in exclusively idealist terms, I need a materialist to help to develop an alternative perspective, in order to achieve a more balanced account. "Interested in" in no way assists that process. You appear to imagine that NPOV is an absolute (which is itself an idealist proposition--a field of knowledge purged of all those pesky contradicitons and conflicts bequeathed by the inherently conflictual nature of society). You also generalise inappropriately to form your argument. Not all memebership in categories derives from the use of a userbox. And for those that do, there is also no evidence that they do not care about the categories. Again, you want to impose your fantasy about how these categories are being used without any evidence. You are proposing to delete on the basis of your fantasies of social networking. DionysosProteus 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tend to prefer to Wikipedia:assume good faith of my fellow wikipedians. Your stated "need" for a materialist to oppose an idealist, clearly does not show such preference. You also may wish to read over WP:NPOV (a core policy). In another place/forum I might have enjoyed a positive debate about philosophy such as you propose above, but this isn't the place for it. - jc37 13:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated attempts to suggest that the arguments that oppose your reasoning belong elsewhere is not a reasonable engagement with the debate. In reviewing WP:NPOV once more, I notice immediately "representing fairly and without bias all significant views"; modern scholarship teaches us that we all hold assumptions and perspectives of which we are to a greater or lesser degree aware or not; this means that such a broad representation may only be achieved collectively. This has absolutely nothing to do with a personal psychological preference about good faith. It refers to a collective process to achieve a balanced coverage of the significant views. Part of that process may involve searching for people who approach a particular field of knowledge from a particular philosophical perspective when we see that a particular article does not achieve the giddy height of WP:NPOV. Userboxes and Wikiprojects do not serve an identical purpose, and I have yet to read of any evidence that the categories are being used for the purposes of social networking. DionysosProteus 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I don't recall ever making the claim about "social networking", you may wish to rephrase your accusation. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consult the meaning of the word "accusation". Rather than making claims about non-existent accusations, perhaps you might answer the point? DionysosProteus 12:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. These Categories helps foster collaboration between editors. Absolutely no reason to delete these core categories. --S.dedalus 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show some examples to support this? - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the burden of proof rests with you since you are voting for deletion. However, to state the obvious, these categories allow editors to find other users with similar interests for the purpose of constructive collaboration.--S.dedalus 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're asking jc37 to prove the non-existence of something, which is a logical fallacy except in limited situations (involving specific constraints and narrow and unambiguous definitions, coupled with various ontological and epistemological assumptions). In practice, the burden of evidence lies with those who seek to justify the retention of content (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, for instance). Finally, these are not 'interest' categories (see Category:Wikipedians by interest). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that the categories are functioning in the way that those who wish to delete them claim they are functioning. The evidence of their usefulness is apparent; wikipedians use them; the evidence that they are useful for collaboration is that you have so many editors here saying that this is why they have placed themselves in a category, to make themselves available for such a process. And you are misrepresenting S.dedalus's use of "interested in"; philosophy and interest are not identical, but neither are they exclusive. Verifiability clearly does not apply, just as notability does not. DionysosProteus 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to the “proving non-existence” fallacy? You can call it that; I just want a straight answer. jc37 says at the top “While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't.” Isn’t that just begging the question (another one from your handy list). Why? Why are categories not useful while user boxes are? This doesn’t stand up to reason. If it is useful to know that a given user is interested (I am neutral on whether these categories should be renamed) in whatever, then why is not informative to know what other Wikipedians might be inclined to collaborate on new pages etc? This category satisfies not a single one of Wikipedia’s categories for deletion guidelines as far as I can see. In nominating for deletion one must then claim Ignore all rules. In that case the burden of proof most assuredly does rest on the nominating users shoulders. --S.dedalus 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively reading my comments doesn't change my reasons for the nominations. And so far, from what I'm reading all your arguments are about user categories in general, not about the specific nomination. And if you took the time to look, you may notice that I'm not proposing a removal of all Wikipedian categories. (Even merely reading the current and recently closed nominations should show that rather clearly.) As for "burden of proof" arguments, I honestly have no idea what you've been arguing with Black Falcon. You made a blanket statement, and I asked you for evidence. Since then you've chosen to not supply said evidence, but instead, what seems to me to be arguing in circles about "IWANTIT". I don't see what else there is to discuss on that point. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "the categories" in that comment followed from the phrasing of your nomination about this specific set of categories, and points to the lack of a substantial argument or evidence to support that nomination. There was no presumption that you were calling for the removal of all categories and to suggest that there was misrepresents the argument. Rather than "I want it", the argument has been that "I find it useful, and for the following reasons...". They enable the identification and location of expertise and approaches that complement userboxes and wikiprojects, rather than being rendered redundant by the latter. They are used by a great many editors, who have made themselves available to anyone who wants to find someone that holds that philosophical position for collaboration to achieve WP:NPOV in an article. That use is not adequately covered by "interested in" (given that my interest does not indicate expertise, nor does it exclude active hostility). All of this refers to this set of nominations in particular. DionysosProteus 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would never suggest that this deletion was biased on religious bias, but I see no other reason to delete when categories like Category:Wikipedians who play Halo are jugged expectable. --S.dedalus 22:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Religious bias ... against whom? All of the philosophy categories have been nominated, irrespective of religious philosophy. Even those that are not directly related to religion have been nominated. In regard to Category:Wikipedians who play Halo, lack of negative judgment (i.e. deletion) does not imply endorsement. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Religious bias in the sense that the Religion categories are of the same nature as Philosophy categories; while nominating one does not mean you have no intentions to nominate the other, may we be reassured that if successful, you will be nominating those for deletion next? DionysosProteus 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, and also in the sense of “bias from a religious point of view.” Nearly every atheistic or existential user category on Wikipedia is included in this deletion proposal. --S.dedalus 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No grounds for deletion. Owen 22:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "grounds" are explained in the umbrella at the top. These individual groupings are (hopefully) for compartmentalisation of discussion. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out numerous times, you have merely stated your opinion that they are unhelpful, never any actual reasons for deletion. . . --S.dedalus 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do this, but I'm curious if you will: Take a moment and read over just this nomination thread. Find all my comments, and see if you can, from them, figure out the nomination rationale(s). And then summarise here. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you weren't asking for my opinion, but it seems that you (a) describe one or more possible uses of these categories that you consider "not useful", and (b) think that the category creates clutter.

The clutter complaint is valid, but not an extremely strong rationale for deletion (i.e., it doesn't take much to show that the benefits outweigh this relatively low cost). As for finding possible uses that aren't useful, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether there are uses that are useful—such as collaboration. If I could describe 1,000 possible uses that aren't useful, then as long as these uses aren't harmful, they have no weight in the argument that the category isn't useful if I find one use of the category that is useful. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I have yet to see an argument that couldn't be applied to every other single user category. Do you eventually plan to nominate all of them? If not, explain how these user categories differ from others. I.e., what makes other user categories useful that is not met by these user categories? Feel free to consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories for help. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A Wikipedian's philosophical and/or religious outlook is too a significant aspect of their personality to ignore. -- Reid1967 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it important to have a category, if your concern is for the outlook/personality of specific editors? In such a case, a userbox would be just as useful. The revelation of potential bias (should editors choose to reveal it) is laudable, but does not necessitate the existence of a corrosponding category. My userpage clearly discloses several aspects of myself that I consider relevant to my editing activities, but little of that is accomplished through user categories, but rather through prose and a small collection of userboxes. The problem with many of these categories is their ties to userboxes, which are often added to userpages by the dozen, which actually reduces the utility of categorization. Horologium t-c 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A userbox may enable the identification in those terms of an editor with whom one is already dealing; it does not enable one to seek out such a person. That userboxes & wikiprojects have overlapping functions with categories does not mean that the former adequately fulfill all of the functions of the latter. DionysosProteus 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your position, it is also likely that one who intends to contribute to a particular subject can find like-minded individuals by viewing previous edits to the article, or in the case of a new article, reviewing the edit history of a related field. I can only speak from personal experience here, but I make extensive use of edit histories of articles before I undertake any sort of substantial revision, and when I have requested assistance from other editors, it is because of personal interaction I have had with them on related projects. Usually editing doesn't take place in a vacuum, and editors who are editing articles in these categories are likely to have already encountered like-minded editors elsewhere through editing and discussion of similar articles. In the case of this (parent) category, it is a catchall for a disparate group of child cats which don't have much in common; some are religious (or anti-religious), some are economics systems (Marxism), some are political cats (Structural Realism), some extol specific virtues (Cynicism) and some can arguably be grouped in multiple categories (Objectivism). Eliminating the parent cat has no effect on the child cats, about which I have not offered a position (nor, for that matter, on this one, as my comments are simply comments, not an argument for retention or deletion). Horologium t-c 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak only from my own experience; however I have used user categories similar to this one on several accessions. At least once it was in an attempt to find an editor to translate a language I didn’t know. On other accessions I have used user categories to seek help understanding specific issues related to a subject, or too look for help writing (or rewriting) an article. While it’s true that eliminating the parent category would not directly eliminate the child cats, it would set a dangerous precedent; one that could be used to justify the deletion of other similarly useful categories. This category helps people find users who are interested in specific philosophies. It’s potentially quit helpful. --S.dedalus 05:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "By language", and "by interest" categries, neither of which are up for discussion... - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that reviewing edit histories provides another means of locating editors that have the relevant information or experience that I might be seeking; however, a category search is quicker and will reveal a different constituency of editors. There are many cases in which that may be useful. They are complimentary methods; the categories are not in redundancy with the edit history information. As far as the parent/child argument goes, it is factually incorrect in some places (Marxism as merely an 'economic' philosophy, for one), but that is besides the point. What you miss is that they are all philosophical positions; it follows from this that they necessarily bear on different fields on knowledge to varying degrees; the category of "philosophies" has a coherence in the real world (however varied the nature of the data in its set), which may also be claimed for the category's use in Wikiworld. As far as "language" and "interest" comment is concerned, S.dedalus clealy indicates "similar to..." and, due to the non-identity of interest and position, "interest" does not render the usefulness of By Philosophy redundant. DionysosProteus 13:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Agree with other points made. Simply put, there is no legitimate reason for deletion of the categories. -- Thefreemarket 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the easiest answer would be to suggest that "legitimate" is apparently in the eye of the beholder. But more to the point, I might susggest that you have expressed no reason to keep, legitimate or otherwise. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, the burden of proof is WITH YOU, since you are nominating for deletion. You have yet to show a sufficient reason for deletion. --S.dedalus 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've shown exacting reasons. Read my response at the very top of this thread. While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, whether you agree or not, has nothing to do with legitimacy. - jc37 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“While a user page notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't.” Why? You most certainly do not give a reason; just your opinion. --S.dedalus 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S.dedalus, as I stated above, the burden of evidence lies with those calling for retention. Rather than asking for proof of non-existence, please supply proof (or at least an argument for) usefulness. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply above.--S.dedalus 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep No point in deleting, and it is always useful to know what one considers himself to be, and others above did a good job of showing how these categories may be useful. Evertype, S.dedalus, Owen, and Thefreemarket said it all. Luis Dantas 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A userpage notice, such as a userbox, should be enough for that. No category is necessary. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the illustrious User:DionysosProteus will forgive me for quoting him here. “A userbox may enable the identification in those terms of an editor with whom one is already dealing; it does not enable one to seek out such a person.” --S.dedalus 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're already dealing with an editor, why are you having a difficult time finding them? And if you wish to seek out such a person, check an article's history, as well as "Whatlinkshere" on the userbox in question. And these are but a few easy ways. There's also the many local WikiProjects, and various noticeboards and the Village Pump. We could delete all the user categories, and Wikipedia would keep on humming along. I'm not suggesting that we do, as I think some are truly useful for collaboration, but they're in no way mandatory for Wikipedia's success. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category provides both functions in a simple to use and clear format: identification and location. To suggest that clicking "What links here" is as straightforward as the category is quite a stretch. Yes, of course there are other means, which you list and which have been discussed above. They do not provide the same function as categories though. That they are not essential to the survival of the project, as should be clear I think, is in no way an argument against them. You acknowledge that "some [categories] are useful for collaboration" but have not explained why these in particular are not. I understand that you attempted to do so with the "specificity" suggestion, yet they are specific designations and as philosophical approaches, by definition, do not relate merely to a single article. I asked the question above but have yet to receive a response: what, exactly, is non-specific about "Marxist"? You have plenty of people here saying "I find them useful", yet maintain an unsupported assertion that they are not useful. DionysosProteus 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all. I think these are helpful in a variety of ways which have nothing to do with social networking. (By the "social networking" rationale, workers on Wikipedia should not have user pages at all.) For one thing, it's a quick way to learn something about the people who edit this thing -- and if a visitor to my page does not know what deism is, they can click on it and find out. I'd sooner the userbox said "is a deist" rather than "interested in deism", but better to keep them as is than delete them all. --Bluejay Young 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is noted in the notice at the top of this page, the userboxes are not under discussion, merely the Wikipedian categories. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing will be gained by deleting. There's generally no need for a fanatic witch-hunt on everything on user pages that isn't purely "Wikipedian". I for one do find it helpful to know facts about Wikipedians, which they are willing to share about themselves. This has nothing to do with social networking: it's completely relevant to, and useful for, the exchange of information while editing here (exactly as user language templates are). Dan Pelleg 08:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about the templates (userboxes), it's about the Wikipedian categories. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are also carriers of information, just as userboxes are, and categories only concerning users are relevant the same way way that userboxes are. Dan Pelleg 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are groupings of users, and shouldn't be used merely as a userpage notice. If you wish a userpage notice, add on to your userpage, don't use a category for it. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that they "shouldn't be" used in this way? That identification is one of the functions that these categories serve, and that userboxes also serve that particular function, is not an argument against a particular category. These categories also serve other functions, as the discussion above explains in some detail. Please explain where it says that the function of identification is an invalid function for user categories--I'd like to read that Wikipedia policy for myself. If it doesn't exist, then kindly amend your phrasing to indicate that you are expressing a personal preference and suggestion, not laying down the law as it stands from a project-wide policy. DionysosProteus 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Agree with collaboration, not identification. --Kbdank71 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting that we enforce identification on anyone. Are you suggesting that you disagree with others identifying themselves? In what way does that impact on your editing? DionysosProteus 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most (except where otherwise noted) and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in <foo>" wherever possible. These categories are useful for collaboration, as they reduce the difficulty by which one might find an editor who has a clue in a particular subject area. I support renaming, especially in the case of philosophical identity, because identifying with a belief implies an interest in that belief. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that "identifying with a belief implies an interest in that belief", it is important to point out, I feel, that the reverse does not hold--expressing an interest in a philosophical approach does not imply that one pursues that approach; interest may indicate hostility to and a desire to root it out wherever it may sprout. Neither does interest imply a degree of expertise, whereas identifying with involves a familiarity with the basic principles at the very least. DionysosProteus 13:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm not at all convinced by any of the arguments for deletion. These categories are helpful. — DIEGO ^talk 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you consider them helpful? - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are helpful because they allow editors to browse by category to find other editors with complementary interests for collaboration. The fact that many of the categories are somewhat obscure actually makes them more helpful than a userbox. I can't help but notice that you don't seem to have an issue with (Category:Christian Wikipedians), etc. How did you make the distinction which categories which categories espousing an editor's personal philosophy were worthy of keeping and which should be deleted/renamed? And please don't give me the WP:OTHERSTUFF response (it is germane to this discussion). — DIEGO ^talk 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep All: User categories are useful for collaboration, and this usefulness far outweighs the concern for "clutter". I have no idea how one could separate their use as a collaboration tool from the ability to use them as identification, or why one would even want to. What, other than the "clutter reduction" is to be gained from deleting these categories? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All - Points for keeping have been made and the reasons written in support of deletion aren't remotely good enough. -- Crevaner 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians

Rename Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism - "Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

Rename as nominator. - jc37 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename Being interested in Transhumanism does not mean that you are a Transhumanist.--Fang 23 02:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The broader category will include editors who can help maintain related articles, even if they do not especially identify with that ideology. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 00:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should "transhumanism" be capitalised in the proposed name? - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, I changed it to lower case. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of knowledge

Category:Empiricist Wikipedians

Category:Rationalist Wikipedians

Category:Existentialist Wikipedians

Category:Humanist Wikipedians

Category:Secular Humanist Wikipedians

Category:Spiritual Humanist Wikipedians

Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians

Category:Phenomenologist Wikipedians

Each of these concern or oppose perspectives on perception/experience/logic as a means towards knowledge. - jc37 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all different perspectives on experience is useful information that can aid in collaboration on a wide range of articles. I don';t think in practice these categories are used for unfair cabals. DGG (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nom has little to do with being "used for unfair cabals". Please see the longer explanation at the top. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I definitely oppose deletion. These categories are indeed very valuable if not outright needed. More than that, I actually fail to see _any_ grounds for proposing deletion. --Luis Dantas 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "grounds" are explained in the umbrella at the top. These individual groupings are (hopefully) for compartmentalisation of discussion. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 05:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether categories in general may be useful for collaboration does not show that these specific categories are. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see know reason why these should be any less useful than any “interested in” category.--S.dedalus 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't really understand the nomination and the grounds for proposed deletion seem tenuous at best. — DIEGO ^talk 08:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is at the top under the umbrella nomination. These sub groupings are merely for convenince for those who wish to discuss specific concerns about specific categories, rather than the whole of Wikipedians by philosophy and its subcats. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singular theory of virtue

Category:Cynical Wikipedians

Category:Morally skeptical Wikipedians

Category:Objectivist Wikipedians

Category:Platonist Wikipedians

Category:Stoic Wikipedians

Category:Epicurean Wikipedians

- Each of these are theories based on the question of whether there is an innate or external force or ideal which causes virtue or not.

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 21:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Practitioners of a particular philosophy are more likely to be knowledgeable about (and interested in) that philosophy and its literature; these categories therefore serve to direct editors with questions relating to article content to those who are likely to be able to answer those questions. Alternatively, move them to "interested in" categories:
Category:Wikipedians interested in Cynicism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Moral skepticism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Objectivism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Platonism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Stoicism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Epicureanism
Cheers! bd2412 T 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming will then make these "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in their future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those categories is relevant to far more than a single article. Perhaps you're merely suggesting that the last word in each category should be lower case to reflect that? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep different philosophical perspectives on experience is useful information that can aid in collaboration on a wide range of articles. I don';t think in practice these categories are used for unfair cabals. The proposed change in wording is acceptable, but i think the present form is clearer. DGG (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to those "wide range of articles"? - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming, no opinion on keep/delete. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and oppose renaming . Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'm proposing deletion, as these are "single-article" indentification-based categories. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bayesian Wikipedians

Category:Bayesian Wikipedians - Single-article mathematical/probability theory. - jc37 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is more than just an abstract mathematical theory--its a far-reaching different perspective on probability that affects world view in a significant way. Useful for finding people of a particualar perspective to help edit. DGG (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Of a particular perspective" - please clarify. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - You could, perhaps, ask some of the users in that category. You know, the intended purpose of user categories: collaboration. Maybe prod a few of them into writing an article discussing the aforementioned perspective. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are plenty of articles that fall under this definition! Category:Bayesian statistics Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a category which holds potential to be especially useful. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep Suggesting this only affects a single article seems to demonstrate ignorance of the subject matter. Bayesian techniques are relevant in computer science, neuroscience, statistics, psychology, gambling, game theory, etc. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as this argument or previous ones I've made apply to virtually all user categories nominated by jc37, I'm going to mostly keep my comments to the broader super-category discussion. As my comment in that category suggests, I strongly feel that all of these categories should be kept. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist Wikipedians

Category:Feminist Wikipedians - another political philosophy cat. - jc37 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in Feminism. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the present name. it's clearer. it doesnt imply hardcore opposition on POV, just a general attitude that is hardly reprehensible or disruptive.DGG (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that all the other Wikipedians by political issue categories have already been deleted. - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per jc37 and oppose renaming since the mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and oppose renaming Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dualist Wikipedians and Category:Materialist Wikipedians

Category:Dualist Wikipedians

Category:Materialist Wikipedians

Singular oppositional beliefs which state whether man has a soul, or not. These are also broad categories which encompass most religious belief systems. - jc37 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in Dualism and Category:Wikipedians interested in Materialism ; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the topics. bd2412 T 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming will then make these "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in their future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose renaming. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest, especially when dealing with such broad beliefs. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming, no opinion on keep/delete. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Twice? : ) - jc37 09:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops ... that's what happens when I stop trying to tailor my comments to each individual nomination. :P - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep. for reasons stated abve in the umbrella discussion. — DIEGO ^talk 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical study

Rename Category:Taoist Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in Taoism - Taoism

Rename Category:Kabbalist Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in Kaballah - Kaballah

Rename Category:Confucian Wikipedians to Category: Wikipedians interested in Confucianism - Confucianism

Rename Category:Gandhian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in Gandhism - Gandhism

- These aren't religions. Each is a study of information. - jc37 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as there are only 3 members of the Taoism and Ghandian categories, I do not oppose deletion as an alternative. - jc37 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice), but oppose rename. Identification != interest. For instance, I am a Wikipedian, but have little interest in any of the articles related to Wikipedia. I adhere to a certain ideology, but I have no interest editing articles related to that (or any other) political ideology. Whether Kaballah really is or isn't a religion, I think it's treated as one; for instance, the article states that "Kabalah refers to a set of esoteric beliefs and practices ...". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that being an adherent means studying about it, which means you're showing interest in it. This is different than most religions in which you can be "in it" by merely saying you are. - jc37 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see where you are coming from, given the description provided in the article, but I'm not sure whether people who add themselves to the category made or will make that distinction. Although the article does state that "Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma", it also notes that "Daojiao/Taochiao refers to Daoism as a religion". - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc37 07:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents.
    As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see my response at the discussion for Category:Jehovah's Witness Wikipedians. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote above. I do support renaming. The broader category will include editors who can help develop and maintain related articles, even if they do not ascribe to the particular ideologies. - Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would that not call for creating new categories and allowing them to populate naturally? While the broader 'interest' categories would be more useful, the people in these categories have not expressed an actual interest in the subject. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Identifying with an ideology expresses an implicit interest in that subject. It would be silly for me to claim that I am a Jimbologist, but that I know nothing about that faith and care less. Not that I am opposed to silliness, mind you, or Jimbology, for that matter. Nevertheless, I have trouble seeing your objection to the connection between identification and interest. As for creating and populating a new category, I think that would just make more work for yourself. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon, and oppose renaming. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bigwyrm. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, It helps with Wikiprojects on the subject. Marlith ^T/C 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename it's the interest that matters here, not the affiliation. And it is certainly relevant to the editing at WP. The social aspects are I think very secondary.DGG (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and I think the plain language is clearer Wpedians interested in is a sot of weasel way to word it. For the smaller groups, by the way, all the more need to help in collaboration. DGG (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (first choice) or rename (second choice), but do not delete. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename. No grounds for deletion, and being a Taoist isn't the same thing as being interested in Taoism. Owen 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, they are not the same, but the former implies the latter. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and oppose renaming This is like trying to delete the Christian Wikipedians category! These are perfectly valid, necessary categories! --S.dedalus 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (edit to add) The proposed new names would essentially create a new category definition; simply another way of deleting the old categories. --S.dedalus 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the nomination. I'm suggesting a rename. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Actually, I don't even understand why deletion was proposed. No point to be found, I am afraid. Let the people tell what their religious interests are. Luis Dantas 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please read the nomination. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a really bad idea. Religious followers of Taoism and Kabbalah could be insulted by a denigration of their faith to “interested in” if this move was carried out. This would be very disrespectful. I urge you to speedily close this discussion. --S.dedalus 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. To suggest that deleting (merging/renaming/whatever) Wikipedian categories on Wikipedia is "a denigration of their faith"? Shocking. - jc37 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err. . .no you are apparently miss reading my statement. I said that RENAMING would be disrespectful since Taoists within the category would suddenly be called “people interested in Taoisam.” Despite common belief Wikipedia actually does have an effect on thereal world. --S.dedalus 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave these categories alone. (Do not rename or delete). I have read the nom and still don't understand exactly what the problem is. The grounds for deleting/renaming these categories seem arbitrary and a bit absurd. — DIEGO ^talk 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Realist Wikipedians

Category:Realist Wikipedians - Realism - As shown on that page, this is also waaaay too broad. - jc37 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in Realism; people who so identify are likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "topic" of realism is so broad as to make this category useless for such an endeavor. Please check out Realism. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose renaming. Realism is not a philosophy or an ideology. It is the name of several dozen related and unrelated artistic, literary, philosophical, and political theories, movements, and worldviews. This category simply cannot foster encyclopedic collaboration because it does not express a single affiliation. The label "realist" is so broad that it is impossible to know specifically what information this category is supposed to convey; therefore, it conveys to useful information. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Most of the ideologies that include the name "Realism" in their names are only related in the loosest of senses. This would not even serve as an appropriate parent category for all of them. Also, I notice that the one member of this category has already elected to found a more appropriate subcategory (which is, ironically, also up for deletion). — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that. Keep and Rename to "Wikipedians interested in Political realism", as that seems to be the intent. See the article for details. Also, reparent under Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, as suggested by Black Falcon in the discussion for Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mystic Wikipedians

Category:Mystic Wikipedians - Mysticism - "The state of oneness has many names depending on the mystical system: Illumination, Union (Christianity), Irfan (Islam), Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism), Samadhi (Hinduism), to name a few." - This is waaaay too broadly inclusive. - jc37 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in Mysticism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and oppose renaming (i.e. better to keep as is than to rename). This is much too broad and this very lack of specificity means that we cannot infer that identification has any relation with knowledge or interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Unlike most recent deletion proposals by Jc37, this one I sort of agree with. Mysticism is too vague and too broad a concept to be useful. Still, if someone want to call themselves as such, let them. Some rewording, or preferably subcategorizing, is probably in order, though. Luis Dantas 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion of the category wouldn't actually prevent anyone from self-identifying as a mystic; it would simply remove the category from the userbox. The userbox itself would neither be deleted nor removed from any userpage. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per bd2412. There are religious systems which incorporate mysticism, but mysticism still stands on its own as an ideology. Also, unlike the Realist Wikipedians category also up for discussion, such mystic religions have mysticism as a common point of belief, and not just in name. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marxist Wikipedians

Category:Marxist Wikipedians - a political philosophy. - jc37 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in Marxism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the philosophy. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't strongly oppose that in this case (due to this being more than a single article topic), all the political issue categories were deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how it being a political philosophy is relevant. Owen 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the "Wikipedians by political issue" categories were previously deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Or doesn’t in this case. --S.dedalus 06:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent for the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by political ideology and oppose renaming. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per bd2412. I do not know how the above deletion was justified, but this one still is not. People who identify with that philosophy are more likely to be able to contribute to related articles. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 06:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. per User:S.dedalus above. — DIEGO ^talk 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bright Wikipedians

Category:Bright Wikipedians - recently turned into a redirect to:

Category:Wikipedian Brights - Brights movement

"The brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic world view." - Comparable to the New age movement, the Wikipedian category of which was deleted. - jc37 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement. Those who identify as Brights are likely to have knowledge of the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming will then make this a "single article interest" category, which will likely result in its future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and oppose renaming. The mere fact of identification does not imply interest. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you also intend to delete all religious categories. --Boreas 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the religious philosophical "movements" are (or were) under discussion. The New age movement (noted above) was already deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing will be gained by deleting. There's generally no need for a fanatic witch-hunt on everything on user pages that isn't purely "Wikipedian". I for one do find it helpful to know facts about Wikipedians, which they are willing to share about themselves. This has nothing to do with social networking: it's completely relevant to, and useful for, the exchange of information while editing here (exactly as user language templates are). Dan Pelleg 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per bd2412. This category may have a limited scope, but it still has value for collaboration. Also, the fact that "Brights movement" and "New age movement" both have the word "movement" in them does not imply a connection. Compare "bowel movement" and "orchestral movement". — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and oppose renaming. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and oppose renaming. per S. Dedalus. Renaming would be inappropriate. "Interested in" is a different thing from "identification as". -- Evertype·✆ 09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy

Category:Vegan Wikipedians

Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal

Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher

Category:Pescetarian Wikipedians

Category:Flexitarian Wikipedians

Category:Fruitarian Wikipedians

Category:Ovo-pesco vegetarian Wikipedians

- These are related to the "by food" categories which are consistantly deleted. They are also userpage notices, and while a userpage notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Seems to me that we have long had the understanding that practitioners of a particular philosophy will be knowledgeable about it, and that these categories therefore serve to direct editors with questions relating to article content to those who are likely to be able to answer those questions. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While these may be somewhat related to philosophy, they are also "lifestyle" categories, which have also been recently deleted. I think it could be questioned whether there not being much of a difference in identification (in terms of criteria for Wikipedian categorisation) between sexual preference and dietary preference. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37. Although a certain philosophical element may be involved, these are essentially "lifestyle" categories. The affiliations are perfectly fine when expressed as userpages notices, but there is little to be gained from categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Most of them are related to various forms of vegetarianism. And these forms are usually much more a chosen lifestyle then just a "dietary philosophy". To say it short: it's all not just about food.Alex Ex 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the lifestyle categories have been previously deleted. - jc37 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't knew that. Alex Ex 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. --S.dedalus 06:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These categories seem a bit narrow, but not so much as to impair their usefulness. Rather than something along the lines of "Category: Wikipedians who really dig cheesecake", these categories relate to coherent dietary and broader philosophies. Personally, I have trouble seeing exactly what their usefulness might be, but that almost certainly attests more to my own dietary values than to the actual utility of these categories. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 04:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An example would be if there were a problem in the article about Kashrut law you might consult folks who keep kosher. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singular theological belief

Category:Agnostic Wikipedians

Category:Antitheist Wikipedians

Category:Apatheist Wikipedians

Category:Atheist Wikipedians

Category:Deist Wikipedians

Category:Dystheist Wikipedians

Category:Empirical agnostic Wikipedians - Weak agnosticism

Category:Ignostic Wikipedians

Category:Intelligent Design Wikipedians

Category:Nihilist Wikipedians

Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians

Category:Pandeist Wikipedians

Category:Pantheist Wikipedians

Category:Theist Wikipedians

- These are single-article theological beliefs. (Theology, in this case, is a statement of how one does or does not believe in some sort of God.) As such they are merely userpage notices, and while a userpage notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nominator. - jc37 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Practitioners of a particular philosophy are more likely to be knowledgeable about (and interested in) that philosophy and its literature; these categories therefore serve to direct editors with questions relating to article content to those who are likely to be able to answer those questions. Alternatively, move them to "interested in" categories:
Category:Wikipedians interested in Agnosticism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Antitheism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Apatheism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Atheism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Deism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Dystheism

Category:Wikipedians interested in empirical agnosticism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Ignosticism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Intelligent Design

Category:Wikipedians interested in Nihilism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Pandeism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Pantheism

Category:Wikipedians interested in Theism
Cheers! bd2412 T 20:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming will then make these "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in their future deletion anyway. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and strongly oppose renaming. These are broad identification categories and thus should be deleted; mere identification with any one of these philosophies does not imply any sort of interest in them. For instance, most people are theists, yet most people are not interested in theism. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Theism is about the only one to which that statement applies. Most people who consider themselves apatheists or deists or nihilists have to begin with a decent philosophical background to know what those things even mean. As for DGG's suggestion that it "would be fair to notify them individually and hear what they think" - that's not only fair, but should be policy. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, not exactly. One can be an atheist, nihilist, or agnostic without having any interest in editing articles related to those topics. The users in these categories have expressed a philosophical affiliation only; they have not explicitly expressed an interest in the subject. They me be interested or they may not be, but I think that we should avoid making guesses on their behalf. As for DGG's suggestion, it has been proposed numerous times in numerous contexts and in numerous variations (once by me, even) and rejected each time. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming. My Dystheism userbox actually says I'm "interested in", but it categorizes me quite inappropriately as a Dystheist. I think just about every one of these categories has boxes that indicate interest, as well as parallel ones that declare an identification. In other words, many of us are indeed in those categories because we have "explicitly expressed an interest" rather than a "philosophical affiliation" — yet both types of boxes put you into the "identifier" category, regardless. This defies logic. Everybody who identifies/affiliates with a philosophy or ideology is by definition interested in it to some degree, but not every interested person is also an identifier. Gnostrat 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than categorising both expressions of 'interest' and 'identification' into an 'interest' category, we could simply split categorisation based on the wording of the userboxes. That is, userboxes that proclaim an interest would categorise into an interest category rather than an identification category; this is the case with User:UBX/Theism3, for instance. Would you support that sort of solution? Also, identification is possible without interest. For instance, I identify quite strongly with one of the philosophies listed above, but I have absolutely no interest in editing articles related to any of them. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But are you knowledgeable about it? bd2412 T 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well ... to a certain extent ... more than the average person, probably, but I still can't write content that meets WP:V and WP:NOR without consulting sources on the subject. Even if there is some link between identification and knowledge, that would suggest that the categories should be kept at their current title, rather than renamed to 'interested in' categories. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mentioned this point in a previous discussion, but here is a good demonstration. As someone who identifies with the above philosophy, and as someone who knows more about the subject than the average person, you have a better knowledge of the available sources relating to that subject. In any case, you set a good example by not including yourself in a category about which you do not desire to write. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Creating an 'interest' category would be an improvement on the status quo however it is done, but I can't see the problem with simply moving the identifiers into the interested cat. I don't accept that you can expressly affiliate to a position and not have an interest in it. B.F., "strong identification" is impossible without interest. What you mean is, you have an interest in the philosophy but not in editing articles about it. If you have decided that what you identify with shall not be relevant to your editing, simply don't announce it. You don't need a category split to make your point. The rest of us no doubt feel that what we identify with is relevant to how we edit (and to other editors), simply because we edit in subjects that we know something about (and that often includes having ready access to sources). So, while I strongly support creating 'interest' categories, if I had to choose between (1) delete all, (2) split and (3) keep all at the current title, I would opt for the latter (they can still be renamed later). But my first choice would still be (4) a straight move — no split. I would also not be averse to (5) retaining the identifieds as a subcat of the interesteds, both here and as a general policy; but actually creating the interested cats is more important. Gnostrat 15:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right: I have an interest in the topic, but I am not interested in articles about the subject. That is, my interest is not relevant to my editing or to Wikipedia; thus, I have not expressed it. However, I cannot agree with the claim that most editors express affiliations because they feel that they are "relevant to [their] editing"; I have seen too many userpages with dozens upon dozens of expressed affiliations to believe that they all imply an interest, especially in light of the fact that we have an entire category tree dedicated to explicit expressions of interest. I will see if I can do anything about separating the categorisation for interest and identification userboxes; this will, I hope, introduce some clarity into the situation. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have created Category:Wikipedians interested in theism as an example of what I'm proposing. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per BD2412. Marwood 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BD2412 --Jadger 05:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and oppose renaming. Insufficient grounds for deletion. These are very necessary categories. They foster collaboration and teamwork. I think that has been proven quite sufficiently in the discussion above. Userboxes do not allow people to find other Wikipedians with similar philosophy. This category will foster constructive collaborative editing. The proposed move would create essentially a new category. --S.dedalus 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It seems that categories nominated for deletion because they are either too narrow (single-article) or "waaay to broad". Where exactly is the perfect middle ground? Why weren't all such categories nominated? Leave these categories alone, they are helpful. — DIEGO ^talk 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can I ask the one who proposed this idea why he did that? Those categories did something to you? Even if you against them for some reason, why delete them? They are eating too much of database or what...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerccio (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, and strong keep thereafter. The esteemed BD2412 is correct. For most of these categories, a statement of belief in the given theology serves to avouch a level of expertise as well. If for the more esoteric theologies this is true (and I do so believe), categories for more mainstream theologies are necessary to provide balance and counter systematic bias. Contrary to Black Falcon, I think it is a very rare individual who would support the claim, "I am a theist, but I am not interested in theism." Even for beliefs more mainstream (those that might arise from mere family associations), it is hard to imagine the renaming doing offense to anyone's original intent in joining the category. Xoloz 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep; undecided on renaming. --Greenwoodtree 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trystero Wikipedians

Category:Trystero Wikipedians - See The Crying of Lot 49. - jc37 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is too much of an inside joke. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BD2412; the userbox reads "This user believes Wikipedia Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to "Wikipedians interested in The Crying of Lot 49" and reparent under "Wikipedians interested in literature". This looks like a fandom, rather than a philosophy. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist Wikipedians

Category:Surrealist Wikipedians - Surrealism - art movement. - jc37 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism. - jc37 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in surrealism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the philosophy. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't even a religious philosophy category. I could also compare this to the New Age movement category which was deleted. Do you propose that we should have Wikipedian categories for all the "Art movements"? If there were more than 3 already created, I suppose I might support the rename suggestion. In any case, it needs to be recategorised. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37 above, with a preference for keeping over renaming (identification != interest, and all that). After looking more closely at the main article, I think the comparison to the "New Age" category deleted earlier this month is appropriate. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians

Category:Structural Realist Wikipedians - Neorealism - A political science philosophy. - jc37 19:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Category:Wikipedians interested in Structural Realism; people who identify as such will likely be knowledgeable about (and interested in) the philosophy. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming will then make this a "single article interest" categories, which will likely result in its future deletion anyway. Also, the other political issue categories have been deleted. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in neorealism (structural realism redirects to neorealism), which should then be made a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in political science, iff the sole member of the category consents. Otherwise, delete per nom. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single member category, for a single-article collaboration. If no consensus to delete, however, I'll very weakly support the rename. - jc37 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians

Category:Haruhiist Wikipedians - The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)#Reception_and_fandom - I suppose it's comparable to being a Trekkie/Trekker who reveres James T. Kirk. - jc37 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. - jc37 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If no consensus to delete, merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television). - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per Black Falcon, and reparent. This should not be under Wikipedians by Philosophy. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 05:45, 23 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.

October 19

Category:Wikipedians who support Notre Dame

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 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian Notre Dame Fighting Irish fans, convention of the parent category and per the main article (Notre Dame Fighting Irish). Otherwise, delete as a single-user category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete per nom. At minimum needs to conform to naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 25 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 California Golden Bears football fans

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 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian California Golden Bears football fans into Category:Wikipedian California Golden Bears fans

Nominator's rationale: A "fans" category for a single athletic team of a single university seems to be overly narrow. The category currently contains only one user, and the parent contains only four, so there's no pressing need to subcategorise. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:13, 19 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:Editors with service awards

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. Note that the awards themselves are not affected (deleted) by the removal of the categorization. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete This category creates a sense of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Users are placed in this category after recieving a service award , which is given for length of time served and quantity (not quality) of edits. There's no requirements for the dits to be constructive at all, its simply time and quantity. However, attempts to delete these awards have been unsuccessful. If we are to be stuck with them, we should at least get rid of the associated categories. An award is one thing, but categorising Wikipedians as Master editors etc. inevitably creates a false sense of hierarchy. Lurker (said · done) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my points in a similar WP:MFD nomination in here. (My comment is the very last one.) Awards by having "served" Wikipedia a certain amount of time is not something to be honored over other people. Even I am a novice editor, I wear the badge as seen in my userpage, and I am not categorised because of that. I do not comment about the actual awards though. ~Iceshark7 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and per all of the arguments at #Category:Awarded Wikipedians. A category of Wikipedians with awards/barnstars has no actual usefulness (does not foster encyclopedic collaboration); in addition, I consider the creation of a hierarchy of status based on something as arbitrary and uninformative as # of edits and time served to be detrimental. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reasons given other than ones that have been cited for previous delete attempts for the awards. The same Keep reasoning (here and here) applies here as well: these awards are merely a statement, or appreciation, of time spent and experience at Wikipedia, and is in no way an attempt at determining an editor's value in relation to his or her edit count. Per this discussion, I will be engaging in some rewording of the service awards though, to combat the possibility of this misconception. I myself like these categories because I'm often curious about how many editors have posted certain service awards.
Comment I'd like to add that I don't think this nomination is proper, because the nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories. In lieu of being able to get them deleted this nomination is an attempt to get smaller aspects of the awards deleted instead. The arguments given for delete are basically that the awards are a bad idea to begin with,which is not an appropriate argument for this discussion, especially since the awards themselves have already been kept, twice.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:50, 10/16/2007
- I have no opinion on the awards and did not participate in the MfD. The categories, which are not an indivisble part of the userboxes, do not foster encyclopedic collaboration and serve no real purpose besides self-identification on fairly arbitrary criteria. There is precedent for deleting "awards" categories of this type and even more precedent for deleting mere self-identification categories that do not somehow tie into encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most average user page material does not serve any purpose in fostering encyclopedic collaboration. A good portion of it, like the thousand or so userboxes and "Wikipedian" categories, are just for fun -- and this one isn't even just for fun; it falls somewhere in the middle. If WP:NOT#MYSPACE is the motivation here then I'd sooner think to see nominations for Wikipedia:Instruments and Category:Wikipedian guitarists. The service awards category is certainly not as "useless" as those.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:57, 10/16/2007
    - Since discussions on this page do not result in the deletion of any userspace pages, I don't think that the comparison to "user page material" and userboxes is accurate. As for the "Wikipedian" and "User" categories, please note that a good portion do have some value (e.g., the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by language, Category:Wikipedians by interest, and Category:Wikipedians by location) and that categories that are merely used for self-identification are routinely deleted. In the case of these categories, self-identification is based in original terminology, arbitrary cut-off points (after all, what's the difference between 40000 edits and 39999?) and in a measure that's not entirely informative (# of edits and length of activity, without consideration for the quality of edits and the level of activity). For these reasons, I disagree with your assessment of the relative worth of these and the "guitarist" categories; but, in any case, the existence or non-existence of other more or less valuable categories has little bearing on the value of these. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The difference is merely the number of edits and the amount of time the user has been around; that's the point of these awards and corresponding categories, and neither make any implications about the users' editing abilities beyond that. I furthermore fail to see how Wikipedians by interest or location are not "merely used for self-identification" or foster encyclopedic collaboration.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:35, 10/16/2007
        
        Exactly. These categories do not imply anything about a user's ability to contribute encyclopedic content, their propensity to collaborate on certain topics, or anything similar; this is contrast to the 'interest' and 'location' categories, which do imply something about ability and propensity. For instance, an editor who expresses an interest in biology can be reasonably expected to be more likely (than those without an interest in the subject) to want to collaborate on articles related to biology. I personally consider the location categories useful mostly in terms of acquiring free images. For instance, one possible way to obtain a free image of a building in Albany, New York is to contact an editor in Category:Wikipedians in Albany, New York and ask that they take and upload an image of the building. Similarly, the language categories can be useful for requesting assistance with translation of sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because they don't make a specific implication doesn't mean they're not useful. We are not meant to look at them and automatically say that one editor is better than another based solely on them. But a general idea of a user's experience level can still be useful, depending on the case and the viewer. What an editor's experience level means is subjective, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's useless.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:58, 10/16/2007
        
        But if they don't make an implication, then what do they do? Moreover, why do the userboxes not suffice to express a particular user's 'experience level' in the absence of the category? Categories are only useful if one wishes to create distinct groupings of editors with the intent to browse through them. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They give you an idea of an editor's experience level. That's all they were ever meant to do. You may not see the value in that but many people do. The categories are useful for those who are curious how many editors there are of a particular experience level (ie. statistical interest). They serve just as much, if not more, of a practical purpose than Category:Wikipedian guitarists, which I can't see getting much if any "browse through" interest as you've suggested must be present for a category to exist.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:16, 10/16/2007
        
        Your statement assumes that edit count and length of activity by themselves are relatively good indicators of experience. Moreover, user categories are very misleading when it comes to drawing general inferences because they are populated by self-categorisation. If the goal is merely to get a number of users in a certain level, the statistics are not really valid because the # of category members is an indication of the # of userbox users, not the actual number of editors with X edits and Y years. If the goal is to get an overview of the Wikipedia population, you have to assume that self-categorisation produces a random sample or a representative sample. That's a lot of assumptions for few or no valid inferences. Even if we overlook all that for the moment, that type of informal statistical interest could be fairly easily satisfied via the Special:Whatlinkshere function.
        
        As for the 'guitarists' category ... well, I haven't argued for its retention. It may also fail to foster collaboration, but that's an issue for a separate discussion; however, I still consider it marginally more useful, since it could be used to procure free media, such as recordings of guitar music. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (in reply to the experience thing) Well... they are. In order to get a certain award you need to have been on Wikipedia for a certain amount of time, and pretty much would have to have been an active participant during that time in order to rack up the corresponding number of edits. That's a measure of experience. What inferences a viewer makes as a result is entirely up to them. And... what categories associated with userboxes aren't self-categorized? Guitarists and German speakers and basket weavers all categorize themselves. And, I really doubt anyone ever went through the guitarists category to find someone to request music samples from. I doubt anyone ever browsed through the guitarists category period, and my point was to reject the contention that a category's existence must be justified by the potential interest for browsing through it. Statistical interest is still valid Keep rationale -- and again, while the resulting statistic isn't going to be accurate due to self-categorization, the same inaccuracy can be claimed for nearly all user categories.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:00, 10/16/2007
        
        Experience: I just don't see the connection (perhaps it's just a difference of opinion or perspective). Someone who makes a lot of minor changes does not automatically gain more experience from that than someone who makes a big change in a single edit. Someone who makes a few hundred spelling corrections ("teh" --> "the", for instance) does not automatically gain more experience from that than someone who reads through several policy pages and makes a handful of talk page comments.
        
        Inferences: Something as vague as that ("what inferences a viewer makes as a result is entirely up to them") is not really appropriate for categorisation, which requires a certain level of specificity and clarity. The best categories are those whose meaning is unambiguous.
        
        Guitarists: Your comments on the 'guitarist' category constitute fairly good reasons for deleting that category (an outcome that I don't necessarily oppose), but provide little reason to keep these ones. Maybe no one has browsed through the guitarist category, but I (for instance) have browsed through Category:Wikipedians interested in Africa and Category:User ru-N. Since some categories are useful for collaboration, the "all or nothing" argument (which is what you're hinting at, I think; please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't really apply.
        
        Browsing: If there is no "potential interest for browsing through" a category, what's the point of its existence? If no one's going to look at a grouping of pages, why group them in the first place?
        
        Self-categorisation and statistics: Well, yes, but the other categories have an a purpose beyond mere self-identification or questionable statistics. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Black Falcon, I hate you because you're just as stubborn as me :)
        
        Tell me something, I notice you have a userbox on your page that declares that you've made over 14,000 contributions. What do you feel is the value in declaring that?
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:13, 10/16/2007
        
        Equazcion- I'd like to add that I don't think this nomination is proper, because the nominator (and the Delete !voters) seem to be against the service awards as a whole, and not merely the categories. In lieu of being able to get them deleted this nomination is an attempt to get smaller aspects of the awards deleted instead. Actually, the reasons I want to see these awards deleted are the reasons I have given. I haver differentiated between keeping the awards and keeping the categories. This is not an attempt to get them deleted by the back door. Please read WP:FAITH. Lurker (said · done) 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hehe ... ;) The edit count userbox on my userpage doesn't really have any substantive value ... it's just there because I have a liking toward statistics and quantification. In terms of what the userbox says about me as an editor .... nothing, really, except that I have >14K preserved edits. However, I think that userboxes and user categories are substantively different creatures. The former merely express information about particular users (since they appear on individual userpages), and that information may or may not be meaningful to someone other than the user using the userbox. How's that for alliteration? :P The latter groups multiple users according to a certain characteristic, thereby automatically implying that that characteristic is meaningful in a more general context. You may be interested in the discussion that led to the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by number of edits and its subcategories (see [[Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by number of edits), which I think has direct relevance to this discussion and these categories, since they too categorise by edit count. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - We've deleted "award" categories previously as not having an benefit to encyclopedia building, and these are no different. I don't mind the awards, but the categories are pointless and serve no purpose. VegaDark (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a nomination for all service award categories, or just the main one (named above)? If it is for all the categories then the notice of the CfD should be placed on all the category pages, not just the main one.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:47, 10/16/2007
Keep If you don't like it, don't participate; if few people participate, the hierarchy will be harmless. If lots participates that implies that the categories are useful or interesting. Λυδαcιτγ 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It implies nothing of the sort ... users who appear in the categories do so because they used one of the userbox. Appearing in the category does not constitute a statement on the value of the category itself. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't think how these categories could ever be "useful". All it does is to place you in a category of a certain "rank", "Master" being the highest rank. Wikipedia should not be used as a ranking system, and there is no way to tell, who is the best of all editors or something like that. These categories aren't simply helping this. ~Iceshark7 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here're some links to previous award-based discussions:
Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2006#Category:Signature_Award

Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/March_2007#Wikipedia_award_categories

Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/April_2007#Category:Users_who_have_the_Ben_Bulben_award

Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/May_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_Wikipedia_award
Delete - We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 10:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No possible benefit to the encyclopedia and it promotes grouping editors by ranks. Chaz ^Beckett 12:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please tag all categories nominated, in the interests of transparency and least-surprising-result. Broadly I'd favour renaming to something that makes their status and meaning of these somewhat clearer, like say ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedians of 2 1/2 years' standing, or something to that effect. Alai 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions of utility aside, that type of title wouldn't be entirely accurate, since the userboxes also involve an edit-count criterion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It'd be entirely accurate, since the characterisation is true of everyone the template's applied to (if said application is correct); it's just not just a complete description. If people really a name that replicates the inclusion criteria in its entirity, then OK, do so (or consider simplifying same, indeed), but the edit-count requirement is in practice somewhat secondary (if that estimation isn't betraying any monstrous editcountitis asssumptions on my part). If we're not leaving "utility" aside (as I assume is the intent of bringing up once more): the "utility" of most of the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedians hierarchy seems fairly marginal for any purpose beyond satisfying idle curiosity about user-page-template transclusion in a more convenient way than rummages around for the what-links-here, and this would seem to be in that range. Are these in any sense conspicuously less so? Or less "utility" than the templates themselves? Are these in any sense conspicuously less so? Or less "utility" than the templates themselves? Alai 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The characterisation would be true of everyone the template's applied to, but the categorisation would be misleading. A simple userpage notice stating "This user has 2 1/2 years of standing is fine, because that is all that it implies. A category with the title Category:Wikipedians of 2 1/2 years' standing implies that 2 1/2 years of standing is the only condition for inclusion, which is not true. The would be other people, with 2 1/2 years of standing but less than the requisite # of edits, who would not qualify for inclusion, per the template's conditions.
    - As for your second point, some user categories probably do exists solely to satisfy some random curiousity and should be deleted. A substantial number of others exist because they group users according to a certain characteristic that can aid collaboration (the 'language' categories can be a first step toward getting translation help, the 'interest' categories suggest good candidates for collaboration on certain topics, and the 'location' categories point out people who can potentially produce free images of particular places). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ack -- please don't "split and re-sign" comments. Had I wanted to leave two fragmentary comments, I'd have left two fragmentary comments. The template's not the only possible means of populating the category: it could be populated from another template, or applied directly. And see the remainder of my comment on other naming (or criteria-simplifying) options. I think attempting to distinguish between purely 'random curiosity' categories, and what are frankly, 'random curiosity' categories with a fig leaf of 'utility' as cover is more trouble than it's worth. If at some point there's general agreement as to "user categories we have suffered to live" it'll be straightforwardly feasible to argue to delete everyone else that doesn't fit such a scheme. Until such time, piecemeal deletion -- on their association with silly templates that people keep trying to deletion, or on the basis of their dodgy names, let us say -- seems likely just to get people tense'n'nervous, and lead to less consistency in user-catting, not more. Alai 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly what about "the 'language' categories can be a first step toward getting translation help, the 'interest' categories suggest good candidates for collaboration on certain topics, and the 'location' categories point out people who can potentially produce free images of particular places" constitutes a 'fig leaf'? They are reasons that those categories may be considered useful for encyclopedic collaboration (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify their retention (if the categories were nominated for deletion, that is) is up to participants in the discussion). Is there any reason to keep these categories? Since there is clearly consensus to keep some user categories and consensus to delete others, an "all-or-nothing" argument or approach is not particularly convincing nor really necessary. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 18 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:User advogato

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/merge all to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User advogato apprentices, Category:User advogato journeyers and Category:User advogato masters

Despite the title, this does not seem to be a programming language category; it's a category for members of the free software community Advogato. Thus, rename the parent category to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato or Category:Wikipedian contributors to Advogato and upmerge the three subcategories, which currently contain only six members. Information about the 'rank' (I'm not entirely sure that that's correct) of individual editors would still be provided by the userbox. Given that the entire category structure contains 8 users, ease of navigation should not be negatively affected. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The category talk page contains useful/interesting information, so it should be preserved (i.e. moved) if possible. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 13 October 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 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Should this follow current discussion for Wikipedian by website?[reply]

Comment - (In response to After Midnight's query.) - Yes, it should, but it would still be a separate nom, because on one hand it's a "community", but on the other it deals with open source software. Because of that I'm neutral on keep/delete, but I do agree with Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato. - jc37 19:25, 19 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.

October 18

Category:Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was Widthdrawn pending overhaul. WaltCip 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale - The test tube nomination - This is no doubt going to raise a few alarms. After all, it would seem unthinkable, frivolous, and perhaps in bad faith to delete the core user category of Wikipedia, and thus throw all forms of self-categorization as comprehended by the Wikipedia community. Yet, this outrageous action does not come with no rationale.

User categories are redundant - First, the prospect of the user category - in theory - is a fairly versatile and collective idealism. Users group together into a single category with their given knowledge or interest and this will be used to further the collaboration effort on Wikipedia. However, this is redundant to the Wikiproject. User categories are passive while Wikiprojects are active, and people who wish to seek collaboration on interests on an active scale can easily join a Wikiproject. Furthermore, any means of self-identification of interests can be done via userbox or identification on a userpage. If a Wikipedian is actively posting, he or she must therefore sign his or her signature, and a person who wishes to understand the position of this Wikipedian may merely click to the userpage and gather any information, or inquire as such.
User categories are divisive - Wikipedians are, in fact, divided by user categories. Tensions regarding self-identification with political, religious, social, and sexual issues occur as a result, as previous debates on UCFD have shown in the past. The persistent roundabouts of the deletions of frivolous and potentially heated categories are a testament to this rationale. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and such. In addition, there are categories present that indicate "notable" or "fantastic" Wikipedians, or those with community valor. There are alternate methods to present these symbols of status than through the user category system.
User categories are staggering - ...and as a result, their purpose is lost. When you have an intensely large number of user categories in divisions such as Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by ethnicity, or Wikipedians by location, one can see that it may seem far better to overhaul the user category system or merely provide sufficient indication by userbox/user page notice as a result.
User categories are red tape - Really, would one actively search through user categories for a Wikipedian skilled in "foo" profession to aid in the construction or improvement of an article? It is more likely than not that the Wikipedian is already working actively on such an article, or it is already part of a Wikiproject.
Conclusion: User categories need an overhaul, for better or for worse - Let's bring this to light. We need to do something to the user category system. Either an outright deletion, a depopulation, or a compression to something that we can make sense of. You may call me crazy, but I truly believe that something needs to be done to reshape this category.--WaltCip 15:52, 18 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.

October 17

Category:Lusophone Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Lusophone Wikipedians to Category:User pt, per Lusophone. - jc37 11:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 11:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, redundant category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. We don't need two cats for the same concept. Horologium t-c 23:19, 22 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.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *'''Delete''' - as nominator. Oppose renaming to "interested in -ism", as nowhere near the category's intent. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete the re-direct only''' but not [[:Category:Wikipedian Brights]]. -- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]]·[[User_talk:Evertype|✆]] 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' and '''Rename''' to [[:Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement]] or possibly [[:Category:Wikipedians interested in Brights]], though I prefer the former. This category may have a limited scope, but it still has value for collaboration. Also, the fact that "Brights movement" and "New age movement" both have the word "movement" in them does not imply a connection. Compare "bowel movement" and "orchestral movement". I support renaming, as that will include both editors who identify as Bright and those who are interested in Brights without identifying as such.&nbsp;— [[User:Bigwyrm|Bigwyrm]] [[Special:Contributions/Bigwyrm|<sub style="color: #006400; line-height: 50%">watch me</sub>]][[User talk:Bigwyrm|<sup style="color: #f64100; line-height: 50%">wake me</sup>]] 06:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians ====