Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12

December 12

Category:Brisbane bus stations to Category:Bus stations in Brisbane

Should be changed to the usual form for categories of buildings. Rename Rhollenton 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brisbane railway stations to Category:Railway stations in Brisbane

Should be changed to the usual form for categories of buildings. Rename Rhollenton 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude users

Not relevant to the production of a better wikipedia. And anyway, everyone is nude some of the time. Delete Rhollenton 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ill-defined. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly. Naked people have little or no influence in society == Mark Twain Herostratus 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have ran for a public office

Any wikipedians who achieve prominence in politics can have an article. Otherwise their aspirations are irrelevant to the production of an encyclopedia. Only 2 members and it should be "run for" anyway. Delete Rhollenton 02:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. May indicate the user has practical political experience, which would be useful to know if said user wishes to contribute to political articles. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who love Julianne Moore

One member fan category. Will not help to produce a better wikipedia and why should anyone care which celebrities other users love? Delete Rhollenton 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians accused of being possessed

More irrelevance. Like those below, this will not help to improve wikipedia's depth or breadth. Delete Rhollenton 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by input device

Parent to the two irrelevancies nominated below. Otherwise empty. Delete Rhollenton 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad. It can be re-created if and when more than a tiny handfull of users are using devices other than keyboards. Herostratus 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Qwerty keyboard users

Even more pointless than the ones nominated below. Only one person has wasted time and server capacity putting himself in it, and I hoped it stays that way. Delete Rhollenton 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary since this is the assumed default. Herostratus

Category:Dvorak keyboard users

More silliness. Not relevant to the production of a good encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 02:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless, though this might change if a userbox template is formed. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. This is an unusual enough category that (unlike QWERTY users) it can contain a reasonably-sized subset of users, neither too large nor too small. If its parent is deleted, just move it up to top level. As to not being relevant to encyclopedia production, I'm not so sure. Anything reasonable that makes a user feel there is place where she can attach to a like-minded subset of editors may engender a greater sense of attachment to Wikipedia, and thus lead to increased contribution. Sort of like -- you know, putting flowers in the women's rooms in a factory mught seem to have nothing to do with making widges, but might lead to greater productivity in the long run. And who knows, two Dvorak users might meet up because of being in that category, and collaborate on great articles. There are six people in this category. I myself would not be inclined to kick them out of their category. I think we should give more leeway to editor categories than to article categories, since editor categories can't confuse or annoy readers. Herostratus 03:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Longhorn Wikipedians

Category connected with a college sports team. Not helpful to the production of a good encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Rename. This is more likely a reference to users of Windows Vista and Windows Server "Longhorn". Though neither OS exists yet, it may not be a bad idea to leave this in as a placeholder. This should be moved and renamed to Category:Windows Vista users under Category:Wikipedians by operating system. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either have a category for every team, or for none. I guess it helps to read the category description before commenting... Sikyanakotik 03:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Have a category for every team, or for none," isn't a reason to delete an existing article or category. If you'd like a category for every team, then start creating more categories - there's no reason to delete what's already there. This category is connected to and for the alumni of The University of Texas at Austin. How it's an invalid category I don't understand; in addition, it's a good place to pool talents for the recent improvements to the main UT Austin article itself, as well as for planned improvements to its sub- and related pages. -Rebelguys2 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon further inspection, I've noticed that there's a large "Wikipedians by alma mater" category. I'll redirect the template [[Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Texas at Austin|there]] <-- not quite sure why my wikilink there isn't showing up, so I stuck it in nowiki tags.. I'll support the deletion of this particular category; however, my points above still stand for alma mater related categories as a whole. -Rebelguys2 03:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphic Wikipedians

Parent of the below, with only one other article. Just as irrelevant as its child to the writing of an encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All wikipedians are assumed to be human, or at least humanoid enough to be called anthropomorphic, unless otherwise noted. However, see below. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic keep. See anthropomorphism, as in this case it refers to anthropomorphic animal-people. This category is for self-identified anthropomorphs (e.g. animal-people by persona) who do not identify with the furry culture (there can be complex reasons for this). Additionally, by experience I have encountered anthropomorphs who object strongly to being called "human," and take it as an insult. I don't have such a problem (I have a more inclusive perception of "human"), but besides why must we assume that every Wikipedia user is either human or a bot? I think there is always a possibility that a Wikipedia user is neither. - Gilgamesh 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, this is about Otherkins and such, not just being humanoid. There are a number of Otherkins in the world, although it's not a huge number. However, (1) there's only one person in this category (Gilgamesh) and (2) the name is confusing, as shown by Sikyanakotiki's comment. But I'm not sure what a name could be used. So I'm too on the fence to vote on this one. In any case, I don't think it should be the parent of Furry. Herostratus 04:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Furry Wikipedians

More nonsense that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move. It's a valid subculture. Move under Category:Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic keep. Furry has been a thriving subculture for decades, and has every reason to remain where it is. As above, though, not every person who maintains an anthropomorphic personality identifies with the furry culture. - Gilgamesh 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Dvorak users and Move per Sikyanokotiski. There are 22 editors in this category. You want to tell them that their group has been eliminated by fiat? I don't. Herostratus 04:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drug Free Wikipedians

Wikipedia is not a social welfare project. If people want to sign up for good causes they should do so in an appropriate place. Delete Rhollenton 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per my comments at Dvorak users. Not inclined to tell others how they can define themselves. Herostratus 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by astrological sign

Another silly classification of no value to an encyclopedia writing project. Deserves an early death. Delete all Rhollenton 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Regardless of anyone's beliefs on astrology, these categories are based on existing userbox templates. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians suspected of being Extraterrestrial

More nonsense of no relevance to an encyclopedia writing project. Delete Rhollenton 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All wikipedians are human unless otherwise noted. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move valid entries to Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians. This should be an identification each user makes for themselves. Categorization of users by other people's suspicion is repugnant to me. - Gilgamesh 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kinky Wikipedians

Self-indulgent nonsense. Of no value to the creation of an encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest. Sikyanakotik 03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category:Professional sports and category:Professional basketball

These were started in October with a token couple of items each and have been ignored since. Trying to slice sport up into professional and non-professional strands with the situation is infinitely complex is just not helpful. Delete both Rhollenton 01:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian radio stations to Category:Radio stations in Russia

All other categories in the Category:Radio stations by country are named “Category:Radio stations in somecountry”. This category should be brought into line with the naming convention. This will not be a difficult move, as there are only three articles in the category. •DanMS 01:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. Rhollenton 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]