Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

User categories for discussion was a process that existed between 2006 and 2009 for discussions of WP:User categories. It was merged into Wikipedia:Categories discussion due to lack of use.

Monthly archives for Wikipedia:User categories for discussion
2006	^{Prior to 6 September 2006,}								September	October	November	December
2007	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December
2008	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December
2009	January	February	March	April	^{As of 5 April 2009,}

^Prior to 6 September 2006, user categories were included in the standard CFD process, the archives of which are located here.

^As of 5 April 2009, user categories are included in the standard CFD process, the archives of which are located here, with a separate catalog of post-April-2009 user category discussions available here.

A separate index of discussions grouped by topic also exists at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index, although it has not been kept up to date.

Speedy nominations

Place legitimate candidates for speedy deletion, merging, or renaming (see Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria) here instead of under a date heading.
If a nomination listed here is not a clear case for speedy, re-list it under the current date.

Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User:Amir Hamzah 2008

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in wikiproject Sims

Speedy rename to either Category:WikiProject Sims participants or Category:WikiProject Sims members per current naming conventions of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boy Scout Users of Wikipedia

Speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians in the Boy Scouts of America as redundant. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per nom. The problem is that the Template:User BSA includes people in this category and not the correct one. --Bduke (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New nominations by date

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

May 7

Category:User avk-3

UpMerge Category:User avk-3 to Category:User avk - Both are single user cats of the same user. Babel breakdown doesn't appear to be needed yet. - jc37 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge - as nominator. - jc37 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. This may be a shocker, but in this case, I actually prefer to leave as is, or even create the "missing" -1 -and -2 categories. This is a valid constructed language (ie, ISO recognition), although very recently approved (14 Jan 2008). Since it is valid, I'd prefer to retain the babelized versions of the category, as per conventions of Category:Wikipedians by language. Horologium (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was essentially: Delete without prejudice for re-creation should there be more interest. I don't think we need 2 categories describing the same language for a single user. - jc37 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in animated television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in an animated TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in children's television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a children's TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a drama TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in fantasy television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a fantasy TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in science fiction television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a science fiction TV series

Per the recent discussion resulting in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series, This is a group rename to extend to convention to all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series. In addition, proposing to change "television series" to "TV series", to match "(TV series)", the dab phrase of long convention for articles. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as nominator. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was desired to have it be television over TV, and that some of these categories had been moved before based on that logic. I'll see if I can find anything on it. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these genre subcats were all recent creations of Lady Aleena. Originally, all the subcats of the genre cats were merely grouped in a single "interested in television" cat. So I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, though I'd welcome more information. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I honestly can't find anything. For all I know I'm thinking about some other abbreviation discussion. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 08:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support changing to "by interest in a...", but am undecided on changing "television" to "TV". As the nom above already closed with the "TV" convention, I guess we should change the rest to match for standard naming conventions for now, but wouldn't mind further discussion on that portion of the title in the future. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have GTA IV

Per this and this, extensive precedent to delete this type of category. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murder one per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steal car and run people down per nom. (that's a "delete" for those unfamiliar with the franchise...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or hire hooker) Enigma ^message 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zero no Tsukaima wikipedians

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Zero no Tsukaima (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedians who like Zero no Tsukaima (2nd choice). Similar categories in the same subcategory use the "who like" naming convention, but I think that is mainly because that is the Wikipedians by TV show convention, and most everything in the parent category is also a TV show. This looks to be exclusively written, so I think a "who read" convention is more proper. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Category:Wikipedians in Seattle

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Seattle, Washington for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy rename --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who speak Albanian

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete - Now meets C1, hopefully won't be recreated. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Empty, but hasn't been empty for 4 days so does not yet meet C1. Improper naming convention, and redundant to Category:User sq. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use findcode

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per criterion G7 (author request). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is for Wikipedians who use a made up code as described at User:Asenine/Find Code to make it easier to find their contribs in search engine searches. Not useful to categorize this. See similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wikipedians by userspace project. Master Redyva (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speedy delete per the topical index... only per WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Interesting, but doesn't seem to be very useful as a category. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I have considered this, and agree. I am the author of the category, so go ahead and delete it. :) asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiOtters

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiOtters are elusive creatures that are endangered, much like the WikiDragon. They help a different user out by editing or simply being friendly". Fringe category of WikiGnomes and WikiFairies, similar categories were deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete &/or exterminate. Master Redyva (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the inclusion criteria are too general to form the basis of useful categorisation: friendliness is a great trait in editors, but it's not really something that's well-suited to categorisation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Popping Wikipedians

"This user is into popping and specializes in {hitting, ticking, botting, etc}". At minimum needs rename to match naming conventions at Category:Wikipedian dancers, but my first choice would be to delete as too narrow for collaboration as it appears to be a single-article category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename to Category:Wikipedian poppers if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark's WikiWisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename One article for the topic, but there are likely articles about notable dancers, as well as articles that are related that would be of interest to those interested in popping (I have no idea if that just made sense.. probably need to go to bed and get some sleep). -- Ned Scott 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per single-article category. --Kbdank71 14:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Single article category. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this line of thinking we'd never get new categories, because there would never be a starting point for them. Very likely there are tons of other Wikipedians that would place themselves in this category. Considering this category was made only a few weeks ago, I fail to see how that's any sort of a logical argument. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, you mean there's only one article for Popping.. I just got that as soon as I hit save. Forgive me, it's the end of the day :) -- Ned Scott 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first I assumed there was only one article for "Popping" as well, but it seems we are all mistaken, according to Template:Popping (dance). -- Ned Scott 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian poppers or Category: Wikipedians interested in popping. Seems like a good use of a collaborative category. Ned pointed out that there are multiple articles all linked through the template. —Scouter Sig 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The dance styles linked from {{Popping (dance)}} seem not to be actual variants of popping, but rather related styles which are often "integrated". This, along with the fact that all 7 users in the category are inactive (only two have edited this year, making a total of 4 edits in the past three months), leads me to weakly support deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus which defaults to keep. The discussion is about evenly split and there is no overwhelming argument in favor of either view. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like this nom, this category is not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, pretty sure we went over this before at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 20. I see no new arguments since then, and the keep rationale is still valid. Highlights that sum up my own feelings are "Clearly a few administrators are using this, even though it was just introduced. There is therefore some opinion that it is useful, and more might come to consider it so. Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all. On the other hand, perhaps I could use a wikitrout myself from time to time. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" and "Strongest possible keep and endeavor to populate with as many admins as possible. It's great for the project to show that admins are open to good-natured reproof and don't take themselves too seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)" -- Ned Scott 05:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Upmerge~~ to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. That you are an administrator has nothing to do with your willingness to have others be frank and/or funny with you. Also note that it says "Slapping may only be done by other administrators in this category" which is blatant elitism. (Well, it is a subcat of the general user category, so I suppose I could slap an admin if I needed/wanted to.) —ScouterSig 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if consensus to delete parent category. If parent category is not deleted, this should be upmerged. —Scouter Sig 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge (whichever) per the same points made in past discussions. I've no problem with deleting harmless UCATs when nobody cares about them, but this is just uncongenial. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found one more uCFD, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008#Trout categories. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories are not tagged for deletion.. I'll tag them now. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think a long history of consensus from the inclusionists has determined that this category's not going anywhere. Procedural keep.--WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slap nominator with a... ehm, sorry, I mean keep. Clearly facilitates collaboration and a harmonious editing environment by showing that not all Wikipedians are averse to constructive criticism sprinkled with a bit of ~~sea life~~, um, sorry, humor. Also see Hiding's closing comments from the previous nomination. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per scoutersig, since my first choice of delete is, per Waltcip, not an option. --Kbdank71 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February_2008#Category:Rouge admins, which established that admin-only joke categories are divisive and unhelpful. Additionally, this should be considered as an all-inclusive category, unless one supports the concept of admins who are not open to constructive criticism. This category's sentiments are clearly conveyed through the userbox; there is no use for such a grouping of admins. For those who cite the previous discussions, note that consensus can change. Horologium (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether humor categories are helpful or not has always been an undecidable debate, since both the proposed benefits and proposed detriments they may have are unmeasurable. What is decisively true, however, is that repeatedly running pages through XfD until you get a favorable outcome is disruptive, a form of gaming the system, and should not be tolerated. --erachima talk 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each time this category has been nominated, it has been by a different user, and in this case, the nominator did not participate in the previous two discussions, so it's not a case of abusing the process by constantly renominating it. Additionally, it's been three months since the last time the category was discussed; it's not like it's a weekly event. Horologium (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even administrators need disipline, especially if they broke the encyclopedia, made a really bad April Fools' edit, or disruptively moved a page, and I think you know who I'm talking about. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Directly useful to the building of an encyclopedia by helping admins encourage others to point out there mistakes. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or Upmerge (2nd choice). The nominator's point that keeping these rediculous categories while deleting the Lazy Wikipedians category is a double standard is well taken. It is a double standard, there is absolutely no use to either category, but just because this one is funny, it's been kept in the past and will be kept again (or perhaps upmerged in a best case expectation). My only real hope out of this nomination is to see this upmerged to the other category, so similar to the Rogue admins category, we can narrow down these crap categories from 2 to 1. Upmerging makes sense, as there is no reason to distiguish admins from the other category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious Keep. I think this kind of category helps to establish the personality of the administrator and therefore the appropriate tone for dealing with them. So many rows start with people taking offence at well meant comments and signals to avoid this benefit WP considerably. --BozMo talk 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - humorous way of saying "admins aware that they screw up occasionally/admins who are fallible" Viridae ^Talk 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a social networking site (not even a little bit). While users are free to enjoy piscine contact and are welcome to invite trout-slapping, categorizing such users does not serve any useful purpose for project-building. This does not even further community-building, unless users get some sort of editorial level up from perusing others who share their hobby. It should also be noted that trout-slapping is animal abuse, and can escalate to iguana-throwing. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:50:34, 03 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was funny at the time. I may even have been in it at some point. But consensus about joke categories does seem to be changing to discourage them. So, per Pathoschild (a paragon of seriousness! :) ), delete ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or upmerge (2nd choice). There are two main problems with joke categories of this type. First, the category is used as a bottom-of-the-page notice, and there is never any real reason to browse through the category itself; there is no reason to specifically seek out a random person for trout-slapping. Second, humour, like beauty, is in the eye of beholder. If one joke category is allowed, it becomes really hard to argue against Wikipedia administrators open to being gored by a bull, Wikipedia administrators open to being nibbled on by pirhanas, Wikipedia administrators open to receiving a low-velocity impact on the wrist by a blunt object composed of aluminum, weighing no more than 1.347 kg, in a manner that does not jeopardise the physical or mental health and integrity of the administrator or any persons, living, dead, or otherwise, within a 32 m radius, to occur only when Mercury is in alignment with Mars, and (finally) Category:LOLZ!!! HA E_*$(&B# HSPD*#$ }. If we take this category in its more serious form, as the equivalent of a category for admins who are open to constructive criticism, then we end up with a category that should be all-inclusive. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Not opposed to UpMerging if the parent cat still exists.) - As noted above, in general, humour isn't used in category space. If you want to make a note that you're open to criticism, please, feel free to note that on your userpage. But there's just no need for a category grouping for this. As noted above, it should be an all-inclusive category. That aside, there simply is no need for an "admin exclusive" version of this category. If it's about being open to criticism, surely it shouldn't matter if you "have the tools" or not. - jc37 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. Enigma ^message 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a great way to let admins know when they have made mistakes in a friendly, polite way. This defiantly does more good than bad. Tiptoety ^talk 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus which defaults to keep. The discussion is about evenly split and there is no overwhelming argument in favor of either view. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like this nom, this category is not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per similar arguments for the above nom for #Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per recent precedent and the fact that no new arguments were made. Note that here, almost every other joke category except these trout categories have been deleted. —Scouter Sig 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the precedent to and the need need to [[delete joke categories. Said category does not aid in collaboration, nor even in community building. —Scouter Sig 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted this above, but I'll repeat it here since this uCFD was directly linked to this category, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008#Trout categories. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the admin category above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if the admins category above is merged into this one. Delete otherwise. --Kbdank71 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike its admin-only analogue, this category is not divisive, but it is equally pointless, and there is a long list of precedents for eliminating joke categories (here), and those who wish to express their sentiment can create a userbox instead of a category. There is no possible collaborative purpose for this category (the same can be said for the admin analogue), and is nothing more than a MySpace-y bit of nonsense. Horologium (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disruptive, process-gaming renomination of a category previously kept. --erachima talk
Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It prevents us Wikipedians from oversillying ourselves and to stay on task without unintentionally nuking 0.35453545...% of the encyclopedia. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero use to encyclopedia building, it is an absolute shame this will be kept as this is one of the only categories that has ever gone directly against established precedent to delete joke/nonsense categories, simply because enough users come in to say ILIKEIT. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the list page made from a minority of Wikipedians that frequent uCfD? Not that the page is all bad, but the topical index is often abused to show artificial support for certain trends. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ScouterSig--Bedford 08:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ah, but EVERYBODY deserves a trout slapping, not just the people in this category! That is, not being in this category should not absolve you from being slapped at any given time.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody deserves a trout slapping, but not everybody is open to it ;) -- Ned Scott 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to WP:AGF and believe that since this category does not preclude or harm any of the purposes of categories, the author and those who have joined must find it useful. If nothing else it keeps us from being too dry and boring. That alone is useful. Jim Miller (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may not be aware of this, but this category was created as a rather POINTy response to the first UCFD on the admin-only category (above) which was itself a POINTy creation sparked by a specific discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit frustrating when people don't seem to understand that you can't violate WP:POINT by simply making a point, but only if you disrupt in the process of making that point. Making a point in itself isn't a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Horologium for pointing me in that direction. I went back and reviewed the prior CfD. As Ned Scott points out above, there is nothing wrong or against policy by making a non-disruptive point. I also went back and reviewed the criteria for deletion - several times. I have not yet seen anything here that meets the criteria for deletion. If we assume good faith, we must believe that ANY category created by an editor serves a useful purpose to at least that editor. It only needs to be useful to those who actually use it anyway. Since I would never ask someone to prove a negative, that leaves us at the point where those who believe we should delete being asked to justify that the mere existance of the category is detrimental to the stated purposes of categories. I have not seen a single justification that the existance of this catagory, or many others (now that I have discovered CfD), impedes the purpose of Wikipedia. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Jim Miller (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless nonsense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is helpful in building the community. A sense of humour and a willingness to not take oneself too seriously - the only requirements for membership - are conducive to the mental health of individual members as well as to building a better Wikipedia. Full disclosure: I created a userbox. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the category help build community in a way that the userbox does not? Do you really think that people are going to search the category for other people who are open to being beat with a fish? (Yes, I am aware of the origin of the term; I was using mIRC in the 1990's.) Your userbox is a great idea, and I would encourage everyone who is in this category to add it to their userpage. However, it does not need a category to accomplish its purpose. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I myself have browsed the category listing, so (although I am a biased sample) I would answer yes to your question. I think a category page is a much more convenient and better laid out way of searching for users than the "what links here" alternative (which is the only way I know of to search for userbox users). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:STOATGOBBLE William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such thing. --Charitwo ^talk 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Mr. Connolley is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, I would try to look beyond the face value of that comment.--WaltCip (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a social networking site (not even a little bit). While users are free to enjoy piscine contact and are welcome to invite trout-slapping, categorizing such users does not serve any useful purpose for project-building. This does not even further community-building, unless users get some sort of editorial level up from perusing others who share their hobby. It should also be noted that trout-slapping is animal abuse, and can escalate to iguana-throwing. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:47:52, 03 May 2008 (UTC)
As above... delete ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. In essence, joke categories of this type are being used as bottom-of-the-page notices (contrary to years of precedent), since there is never any real reason to browse through the category itself, and the retention of one joke category makes it much harder to get rid of other useless pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, in general, humour isn't used in category space. If you want to make a note that you're open to criticism, please, feel free to note that on your userpage. But there's just no need for a category grouping for this. As noted above, it should be an all-inclusive category. - jc37 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. Also, if you don't understand the purpose of this category, you might need to be slapped with a large trout. Enigma ^message 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one who helped in the creation of the trout template, and who would like to think that they know the "purpose" of the Wikipediaspace page and the (several) templates, I'll ask directly: What do you feel is the "purpose of this category"? Note that before you answer, I too have a trout at the ready. - jc37 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of it is similar to what was written above: "Clearly facilitates collaboration and a harmonious editing environment by showing that not all Wikipedians are averse to constructive criticism sprinkled with a bit of...humor." Enigma ^message 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is presumed (which I might dispute) so too would categories such as: Wikipedians who assume good faith; Wikipedians who respect consensus; Wikipedians who are civil; or even Wikipedians who are editors. And userboxes, and the projectspace pages, illustrate Wikipedian humour quite well. A category is a grouping, not an illustration, and should not be used any other sort of bottom-of-the-page notice.) So with this in mind, how do you feel that such an all-inclusive category helps facilitate collaboration? - jc37 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's a big difference between putting yourself in a category for some good trait, and saying that you're open to trout-slapping. Being open to trout-slapping in my mind, is similar to an administrator placing him or herself in the recall category. Although obviously being open to recall is opening yourself up to an actual process, as opposed to a mere figurative trout-slap, the general gist is the same. I feel that the category is useful. If you want to argue that it could have a userbox instead of an actual category, the same argument could be made for many current categories that exist. Enigma ^message 03:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ussri Bobby

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ussri Bobby - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Attack category; no evidence has been provided that this editor ever used sockpuppets. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created by Lucy C. V. Robinson (talk · contribs), who appears to be a sockpuppet of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs). The user's first edit was to add a {{Puppetmaster}} tag to User talk:Ussri Bobby. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this is indeed an attack, especially if it is baseless vandalism, and especially if the creator is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Master even supports a speedy delete. Master Redyva (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category appears to be empty + per others. The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 26

Category:Sahrawi Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty except for a template and wikipedia-space page, no actual users in the category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to even articulate my question, so just imagine this scenario: If a user signs up now who is Norwegian, there is already Category:Norwegian Wikipedians and he will be automatically added to that category by adding the appropriate userbox. If a Sahrawi Wikipedian signs up in the future, he may well add this userbox, but not be added to the category because it was deleted now. Why would the category be deleted pre-emptive of a user signing up for it? I can understand deleting, say, Akkadian Wikipedians, as that nation no longer exists, but I don't see the rationale in deleting this as it has just as much utility as Norwegian Wikipedians, only for Sahrawis who may not have registered on (English) Wikipedia yet. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Nom. The Master thinks "If" scenario silly. Master Redyva (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if/when Sahrawi Wikipedians (or even one) wish to identify as such. —Scouter Sig 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No predudice against a (re-)creation of a Wikipedians in (or from) version of the category. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore, Maryland for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per above --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cooch Behar Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - Removed the category from the populating userbox: Template:User Cooch Behar, since the single member also had Template:User West Bengal on their userpage (one of the rename options supported below). - jc37 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single user category, needs rename to Category:Wikipedians in Cooch Behar at minimum. Fairly low city population to sustain a category (76k). VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Cooch Behar (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedians in West Bengal (2nd choice). West Bengal is a higher-level administrative division and a category for Wikipedians from West Bengal is much more likely to be populated; the reason it's my second choice is that specificity is generally useful for the "by location" categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Black Falcon's WikiArguement. Master Redyva (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per single user category. --Kbdank71 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletewithout prejudice to recreation under suggested name (first choice) or Rename as per Black Falcon (second choice). This is an almost two-year old category with a single user; if more people show up to use the cat, I heartily support recreation. Horologium (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lazy Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom and vast precedent. Horologium (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not add to encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Could be seen as disparaging. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And I suppose Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping, or some (but not all) of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians are helpful to encyclopedia building as well. I'm sure there are others in the ocean of categories too. --Charitwo ^talk 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not useful categorization. (I'd favour deleting the similar categories Charitwo mentions as well.) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:58:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be empty? Presumably if you can add yourself to this category, you're not that lazy. Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete w/ the quickness. Master Redyva (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, um... well... you know. (too lazy to sign)

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

Category:Wood Badger Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus, defaults to keep. This was a real train wreck, with accusations of failure to assume AGF coming from both sides of the debate. I would suggest that if this category is brought up again in a future discussion, both sides assume good faith in each other; nominating a category for deletion is not a personal attack, and !voting to keep is not a blatant disregard for precedent and policy. Horologium (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These are adult Scouters who have completed the Wood Badge training course from their respective Scout Association and received at least 2 wood beads" - No reason to group these users in a category, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is reason to group them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason? Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 20:15, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unlike what VegaDark would have us believe, the precedent here is mixed. There is no reason not to allow wikians to selfID as Wood Badgers, as they do with dozens of other self categorizations. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "dozens of other self categorizations" sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 21:00, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nominator & Wikipedians by award. -Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 17:51, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Note:Wikipedians by award is not a policy, but just a historical list, with an inconsistent record. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None the less, the "inconsistent historical list" and the nominator's reasoning have cemented my vote in stone (more than half of the "by award" list were deleted, sound precedent). Thanks. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 18:52, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Delete per "No reason to group these users in a category." The catergory does not appear useful for encyclopedia. SameDayService (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Members of this category have completed Scouting's highest adult training course and are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, and although inclusion in a user category might to a non-Scouter appear as a small thing cast easily aside, any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated. Another point: Something as simple as inclusion in a user category might be fuel for the fire to entice these Wikipedians into contributing to, or to make further contributions to, the worldwide Scouting portal. For at least these two reasons, and more yet to be verbalized, I am on the "strong keep" side of the table. Thanks. xpanmanx (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "proud of their accomplishments"? Is this a catergory or a userpage topic? "bind us together," is this a social networking issue? Please see WP:NOTMYSPACE Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse)

Keep because this is not an award, but a conferred educational recognition. Those people who have completed this level of training have demonstrated a high level of expertise within the program, and that is both useful and appropriate for an encyclopedia. We allow other means of displaying levels of expertise in order to indentify those with an acknowledged strength in a particular area, and this is no different. The precedent cited has no bearing in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per educational rationale of User:JimMillerJr. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to make it clear. I won't be closing this. Consider this similar to an arbitrator's recusal. Incidentally, I don't expect any of the questions for clarification to be responded to, nor do I expect this to close as anything other than speedy keep (I almost closed it as such myself). There simply are times on Wikipedia in which the POV pushers will "get their way" depite the double standard they're setting. (Incidentally, WP:AGF says to do so only until you encounter evidence to the contrary. And, in the past, I feel I have.) I mean this sincerely: Being an outstanding person of sound mind, and personal accomplishments is a great thing. I support, and honestly admire it. But we're all Wikipedians here. And I don't see any place where this category helps in the building of the encyclopedia. Indeed, I've seen one person make it clear that this is a "self-identifying category". Well, userboxes are enough for that. But please, continue with the POV pushing, to "get your way". After all, You'll have won, what? A feel-good listing of your friends. Congratulations. I hope you enjoy it. - jc37 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about lack of AGF. What's more harmful and less encyclopedic--userpages with dozens of boxes that make it very difficult to read and use that page or categories that help make it easy to find users with similar interests? Wiki's pendulum has swung way to far to the deletionists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jim Miller, this categorization may serve to aid the Scouting WikiProject in creating, developing, and improving articles. Wikipedia:User categories are intended "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." The page also notes that naming and description restrictions are similar to those for userboxes. Following that line of thought… Restrictions on Userboxes refers to User page guidelines. As such, reviewing user page guidelines:

Guidance on what is acceptable on user page:

"Your user page is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project…a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working."

Guidance on what is unacceptable on user page:

"Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia." [Bold mine] A simple category, which does aid in collaboration, certainly does not exceed the "excessive" information guideline.
"Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia." This category, at worst, falls into this grouping. AGF, this helps establish some information about the level of knowledge an editor may have when editing articles that are related to the Scouting WikiProject.

— ERcheck (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing in any of the keep rationales explains how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting is not sufficient to cover the supposed benefits of the category. Why would that category not be enough to facilitate collaboration? I also find it fairly odd that so many users have come out of the woodwork who have never been to UCFD before just to vote on this. VegaDark (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another lack of AGF. Maybe they watch the cat like I do or watch edits of someone involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lack of AGF, I just find it striking that so many users could discover this so fast with no noticeboard posting that I am aware of. And I'm still wondering how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting isn't sufficient enough for collaboration, that category seems to cover any reasoning that has been provided to keep this category. VegaDark (talk)

comment for vegadark I'd like to know who these phantom users are of whom you speak. That sure smacks to me of bad faith, and I take umbrage. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom users? Are you referring to those who I said I have never seen at UCFD before? VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"interested in Scouting" is "not enough" because this topic isn't as simple as you think it is. If you don't understand the subject matter then please don't comment on it. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With 65 subcatagories of Wikipedians by degree rather than a single catagory of Wikipedians with college degrees, we seem to place some value on the level of an editors claimed expertise. It would seem that maintaining a similar breakdown to indicate those levels within this area is clearly within both the letter and spirit of WP:USERCAT. I am not making a claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but merely pointing out that the entire justification for User catagories is to identify an editors knowledge at specific levels in a way meaningful to those who check those catagories. Jim Miller (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Boy Scouts badge is a far cry from a college degree. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your dismissive tone says it all. The wood badge is not "a boy scouts badge". It is the name given to the adult leader training award by Scout associations worldwide. It is an adult youth work qualification. Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dismissive because this simply Training - Ongoing . I liken it to categorizing people who are CPR or First Aid certified. According to the article, "Classroom and outdoor training are often combined and taught together, and occur over one or more weeks or weekends." Something that can be obtained in a couple weekends of classes should not be compared to a college degree, which takes years of hard work, and is a standard benchmark in society to determine one's education level. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is only part of the training. There is generally quite a bit of correspondence study. In Australia it is approved as a Diploma of Leadership under the Australian Qualifications Framework. It is a Technical and Further Education Award. I have the Wood Badge and I am in this category having put the userbox on my user page, but I am still uncertain as to whether the category should be kept or deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark: Saying that Woodbadge is something that can be obtained in a couple of week ends is like saying that a degree is something that can be obtaining by just waiting for the dean to call your name, then standing up and taking the diploma from his hands. Of course, there's a lot more before this, be it years of study or years of service to the scout movement and its youth members. While the path to achieving your Wood Badge varies by country, in all cases you are required to have attended previous courses and to evaluate your previous performance as an adult leader. For this reason, it is a "standard benchmark" (to use your words) to compare different training curricula of different scout organization. I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I based that off what the article says, if that is incorrect then someone should change it. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wood badge course itself last for a week. However, before attending the course a participant needs to complete several prerequisites courses. In the Philippines, after completing the prerequisite courses but before attending the wood badge course, participants are required to complete defined critical achievements such as helping 25% of your boy scouts advance to the next rank. Now attending the wood badge course does not automatically grants you the award/recognition. After the course participants must complete their ticket. It is like a self-imposed measurable achievement. Again in the Philippines, participants are given a series of question that they need to write a report on (sort of like a research paper). These questions are designed to test a participant's understanding of the principles of Scouting including the Patrol Method, the concept of Learning by Doing, membership in small groups, etc. Upon submitting the report the participant gets interviewed to drill into the responses to the question. Eventually the participant is given the wood badge and the certificate of completion. Hopefully this gives a better idea of what’s involved. So it is an award to signify that a person is considered “knowledgeable” in the subject matter both in theory and in practice.-Mang Kiko (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful category. --evrik ^(talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a useful indication of the users level of expertise in Scouting matters, and on the grounds that it is primarily a mark of achieving an educational level, rather than an award. Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jim Miller's excellent comments. This is not simply a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting but a grouping of potential resources, similar to Category:Wikipedians by education or Category:Wikipedians by skill. I believe it is unlike Wikipedians by professional association in that the members of the category are specialized enough to merit a subcat, but not overspecific enough to no longer be collaborative. —Scouter Sig 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the Wood Badge course is an advanced adult leader training course, not an award that can be "won" or that is handed out lightly. It is indeed a defining characteristic of many of the people that complete this training and this category serves as a useful way to self-organize editor for a variety Wikipedia-related tasks in the Scouting project. - Dravecky (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful in estimating the knowledge of an editor on scouting matters. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "estimating the knowledge of an editor," Woah! Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WOAH!, is it really that hard to conceive that if a user says "I know a lot about X" that they might know a lot about X? -- Ned Scott 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right. So if I say I know a lot about something, it means I do? I can't wait to add my name to this catergory once all the boy scouts vote to keep it. Fun! I do agree with Vegadark: this is not worth categorizing. Master Redyva (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible people are lying, but we assume good faith on Wikipedia, and we don't require verification for claims like this made in meta space. I'm in Category:Wikipedian audio engineers, but you have no way of knowing that I actually am one, or that I've had years of experience with audio engineering. But if someone were to ask for my help with a related article, not only would I be able to help out, but I have a great amount of references. That is why we keep these kinds of categories. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redyva, I think many of the discussions in the "lifestyle" section were deleted because they are poorly defined, not just because it's a description. This Wood Badge category is very much defined. —Scouter Sig 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is well defined does not mean it needs a category. --Kbdank71 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Category:Wikipedians by skill. Simply just doing something is one thing, but it's pretty clear that this involves a skill and a level of expertise. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: shows deep knowledge of Scouting.--Bedford 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire. If you want myspace, it's thataway. This is wikipedia. If you want a pat on the head for having skill, get a userbox. Or here's a novel idea: get a myspace account. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's patting anyone on the head? We keep these kinds of categories for collaboration purposes, not for praise. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Members of this category ... are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, ... any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated." Sure sounds like a pat on the head to me. If you wanted to collaborate, a better place to say "ask me for help" would be Talk:Wood_Badge. --Kbdank71 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting. Saying that you are interested in the subject matter is insufficient. Also, no other categorization that I am aware of serves this purpose. - Mang Kiko (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting." What? I am reading its an "award for adult leaders" and the course is to teach leadership skills. Where is all this "deep knowledge" coming from? "deep knowledge" keeps getting repeated. Master Redyva (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Swedish-American Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent to double upmerge such categories here. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge to Category:Swedish Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians as nom. Not particularly opposed to only upmerging to Category:Swedish Wikipedians, per the category description saying "People from Sweden currently living in the United States, or Americans with Swedish ancestry.", and ancestry cats have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per "ancestry" precedent, but do not merge. The problem with a merge here is that it combines two disparate groups, people who were born in Sweden and people whose ancestors were born in Sweden. A merge to Swedish would inappropriately categorize those who are using this category for an ancestry identification, and merging it to American might be inappropriate for Swedes living in the United States who don't consider themselves to be American. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with unreserved enthusiasm. Master Redyva (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of all the ancestry categories is absurd.--Bedford 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia patrols

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedily closed as Withdrawn - As noted below, this was just a confusion due to Category:Wikipedia patrols being miscategorised. - jc37 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedia patrols to Category:Wikipedian page patrollers

Essentially the same thing. Open to suggestions for a better target name might be. - jc37 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominator. - jc37 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you leave a word out? That first category is a redlink, and it doesn't appear to have been a category recently. (The only link to the category is this discussion.) Horologium (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting. "There are no pages or files in this category." Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedian was the problem. Though now fixed : ) - jc37 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only difference between the two categories is that one has subcats, and the other has pages. I will add the pages to the target (Category:Wikipedian page patrollers), and thereby make the first redundant. Horologium (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this does not seem to be a user cat, but rather a project page category. In other words, pages for patrolling would be placed in here. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... keep. As Ned Scott notes, these two similarly-named categories seem to have different functions: Category:Wikipedia patrols is intended for pages in the Wikipedia namespace and Category:Wikipedian page patrollers is a user category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - per the recent discussions: here and here. And it's a single user-cat. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the past two discussions mentioned by the nom don't really seem to apply. For one, this is an "interested in" cat, while the other two involved "likes" cats. The other discussions involved individual shows, where some felt it was needless to be that specific, but that really won't be an issue here. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the convention for subcats of "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" is to use the "who like" convention. And I might note that they were (at one point) subcats of this cat. As of now, all the subcats of this cat have been individually deleted. Given that prior precedent, I don't foresee this cat being used as a parent category. So this is more a question of should this be depopulated (and thus deleted). - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "interested in reality television" Is too broad to be useful. You can't possibly be interested in collaborating on all reality TV shows, the category gives no direction. No prejudice to creating a "Wikipedians by interest in a reality TV series" category though, as a parent category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV has become a type of show, and yes, you can be interested in collaborating on all of them. It's no different than a user interested in, say, anime. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can be interested in all of them, sure, but will you collaborate on all of them? Doubtful. Delete. --Kbdank71 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series (up for rename, not deletion), and this is no different from that. I'm interested in anime collaboration, that doesn't mean that I'll be able to edit all articles about that topic, but that's not what the category is suggesting. This logic would have us delete almost every single "interested in" user cat that we have. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. And it's all based on the letter "A". "Wikipedians interested in reality television" means "as a whole", also known as "all of it". "Wikipedians by interest in a television series", with the article "A" in it, limits it to one. As in, Interested in ONE television series. Much different than what I was speaking of above. Not to mention that "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" has no users in it, just subcats. --Kbdank71 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... obviously I was talking about the subcats within it. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, the cat has no subcats, and likely will not have subcats. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As JC notes, there are no subcats. Make my delete strong per single user category, in addition to my reasons above, please. --Kbdank71 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete "reality" programing if possible. Master Redyva (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott.--Bedford 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows to Category:Wikipedians interested in TV game shows

Not sure about this one, but felt it should be discussed. I didn't think we should try to shoehorn "TV series" into the name, since the article is Game show. But suggesting to at least change "television" to "TV" per the other nom. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Nominator's wisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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