< November 2007	January 2008 >

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename, uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in counter terrorism to Category:Wikipedians interested in counter-terrorism (to match Counter-terrorism and Category:Counter-terrorism)

Speedy rename: "counterterrorism" (or "counter-terrorism") is one word. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Category:Wikipedians who like the Mirror universe to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the category is too narrow, being limited essentially to just one article. Thus, a user category is not needed since the article's talk page is the most logical hub for collaboration. Also, despite being created over 10 months ago, the category still contains only one user. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong merge - I nominated this several months ago for the same reasons, and stunningly it was kept. I think the reasoning was that people could collaborate on the articles on individual episodes that featured the mirror universe. Using that logic, however, you could keep "Wikipedians who like tricorders" or "Wikipedians who like Vulcans" categories as well, or pretty much anything in any tv show. VegaDark (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• You may find the previous discussion at /Archive/April 2007. –Pomte 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The last discussion resulted in "No consensus", not directly "keep" :p - (2:2 for those vote counters out there...) - jc37 11:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - single user/single article category. UpMerge if no consensus to delete. - jc37 11:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - far too narrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 18:17, January 2, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Jesuit alumni to Category:Jesuit alumni wikipedians Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Jesuit schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category must clearly indicate its purpose. The old name may be confused with article namespace. (It occurs now to me that in fact it squats a valid article space category.) Laudak (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, but should this be here, or the other place? Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Jesuit schools by convention. All its fellow subcats should be renamed as well. I've notified UCFD. –Pomte 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have moved this from CFD to here. The suggestion above is more in line with what would have been suggested here earlier, and I endorse that suggestion. --Bduke (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have renominated it with the new rename suggestion while changing the tag on the category page. Pomte, what subcats were you referring to? --Bduke (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I have tagged these similar subcats of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Catholic schools for discussion here.

Category:Capuchin alumni (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Christian Brother (Irish) alumni (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Christian Brother alumni (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Marist Brother alumni (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Salesian alumni (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

They look like categories for mainspace articles, and have been taken as such in Lloyd Monserratt and Marco Travaglio. After trying to understand the associated Catholic school articles, some of these definitely include high schools, though I don't know if they include colleges to be appropriate here. –Pomte 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. These categories do not reflect affiliation with any post-secondary institution (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats). Indeed, they do not reflect affiliation with any particular institution. If no consensus to delete, rename per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC) relist to check support for BF's suggestion before this is closed rename --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - These don't specify if they are colleges or not, and by looking through I think the categories are for primary education, which we have deemed as too specific for collaboration. Rename all per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - These just specify what Roman Catholic religious order "runs" the schools. See also Jesuits#Jesuit_Educational_institutions and List of Jesuit institutions for just one example. - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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 muti-merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Arab Canadian Wikipedians (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We already have Category:Arab Wikipedians and Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Categorizing this specifically would allow for any number of nationality/ethnicity combination categories, which would be potentially thousands. This seems like overcategorization. VegaDark (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the 2 members in to relevant categories, then delete, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know. If I wanted to find someone to collaborate with on Canadian articles, I would go to WikiProject Canada. To collaborate on Arab articles, WikiProject Arab world. But it's exponentially harder to find someone interested in articles about Arab Canadians. Maybe this sort of thing should be clearly listified somewhere, say at the associated WikiProjects. –Pomte 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• The question then becomes if there are any articles that Arab Canadians are likely to specifically collaborate on (or any other ethnicity-nationalty combination), and more specifically, if such articles do exist, if enough of such articles merit a category rather than just using the talk page of an article. If so, I could support keeping the category. VegaDark (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Arab Canadians, with 13 blue links to people and 2 blue links to organizatiions.

Possibly Iraqi Canadian, with 10 blue links to people.

Possibly Syrian Canadian.

Creation of notable red links.

The number of pages in associated categories don't agree with the number of links in these articles, so work needs to be done to organize them.

From a brief glance, there's no talk activity.

Only 2 people in the category after more than a year; if delete, tell them about each other in case they want to collaborate. –Pomte 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, let me reframe my position on this type of category. We allow categorization by basic demographic information, which the Arab Wikipedians and Canadian Wikipedians categories adequately cover. Past that, we allow categorization by what would foster encyclopedic collaboration. The members of this category, as currently named, are not necessarily going to be interested on collaborating on Arab Canadian related articles just because they are one. If they are, they should create a category titled Category:Wikipedians interested in Arab Canadian topics or something similar. VegaDark (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC) - I can't tell if the 2 people who have commented are currenly advocating keep or merge (or delete). Please clarify (additional opinions from others are also welcome) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect If it's just me and one other user... i say merge into other, more appropriate-fitting, categories (such as Arab wikipedians, and Canadian wikipedians) and let him/her know of it too. frankly, it matters very little to me, as i'm a mixed-breed of several cultures and nationalities, but identify as irish-french most of the time. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Multi-merge to Category:Canadian Wikipedians and Category:Arab Wikipedians per VegaDark. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in Natural Sciences - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for users interested in the natural sciences (presumably referring to the "fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences" rather than the "rational approach to the study of the universe"). While one might assume that this is a useful "interest" category just like any other, the fact is that there are a number of highly distinct disciplines that can be classified as "natural sciences" (e.g. astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics), and individual categories already exist for them. Thus, the category's scope is much too broad. While this could serve as a parent category for the discipline-specific categories, Category:Wikipedians interested in science is not yet populated to the extent that subcategorisation is needed or warranted. (At this time, subcategorisation of this type would likely hinder navigation more than it would help.)

• Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the natural sciences. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom - inclusion criteria is too broad. No prejudice against recreation as a parent cat in the future if needed. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or depopulate to use for a parent category. Even if it is used as such, it may need to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by natural science interest to show it should not have individual users in it. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Singularitarian Wikipedians - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category, which groups users who believe that technological singularity is possible and desirable, does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Merely holding a particular belief implies neither an above-average desire to contribute to articles about the subject (to assume so would likely be presumptuous or stereotyping) nor above-average access to or awareness of resources that could aid encyclopedic writing. In addition, despite being created 1-1/2 years ago, the category contains only a single userpage, associated with an account that has been inactive for 18 months and whose only edit to the mainspace was to an article about Star Trek.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - single article (and single user for more than a "short period of time") category. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with academic publications - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Thought undoubtedly created in good faith (to supplement {{User published author}}), this category seems to function essentially as a vanity category. I'm not suggesting that it was created for this purpose or that the users in the category are vain, but just that the category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. While the information may be interesting, the userbox is adequate to convey it, and a grouping of users serves no real purpose. This category implies no subject-specific interest, knowledge, or access to sources, and does not achieve anything that is not already achieved by other "interest" or "profession" user categories. (See also: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians by Erdős number and all subcategories)

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is much more relevant as a vanity category than say Category:Wikipedians with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Having an Erdos number is a non-defining consequence of having published, and so is fundamentally different from this one. Rather than fostering collaboration directly, the category is useful for suggesting the quality of Wikipedia's userbase, being one artifact for general tendencies to contrast Wikipedians with professionals, and what the chance is of templates like {{expert}} being successful. Anyone stumbling onto a userpage inside the category may wonder what other Wikipedians have published academically, and the category gives an indication of that, even if it is by no means complete. For anyone suggesting listifcation, it can be listifed directly within the category to spell out subject areas and other details. –Pomte 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's problematic to make any inferences about the "quality of Wikipedia's userbase" using this category. Some editors with publications may deliberately choose not to appear in the category. In addition, we cannot confirm the truth of self-categorisation; while we should assume good faith overall, a temptation for exaggeration does accompany anonymity. In essence, we cannot assume that the category is either representative of the general population of Wikipedia editors nor that it is accurate; this is not a problem so long as user categories are used as navigational devices, but it does become an issue when we try to make generalisations. Could you clarify what you mean by "listified directly within the category"? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is problematic to make any inference of the sort (I've been working on the problem of induction :), but it's done regardless. A disclaimer can be put in the category to say that it is not complete, or that the users may not have proved that they have published, though I think this is obvious. By "listified directly within the category", I mean the category itself can contain the potential list, rather than in project space. Also, I strongly disagree with Marlith and Bedford's reasons below. From this observation, it probably is a good idea to get rid of it to dispel such optimism. My thought was not for people to think that "wow, Wikipedians are awesome based on this sample", but simply that "there are possibly Wikipedians who have created reliable academic sources." By "quality", I didn't mean positive overall quality. –Pomte 09:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe this gives a sense of authority to editors, which helps with our public relations. Marlith 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• You may wish to review Wikipedia:Credentials (a proposal rejected by the community) and Essjay controversy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I have a conflict of interest because I could be in this category. However, I see no particular reason why I should be. People can find out the areas in which I publish from my user page and that is more valuable than a general category. It also points to the probability that, while this category is quite well populated, it is missing a lot of wikipedians who could be in it. It tells us little of the "quality of Wikipedia's userbase". I would also add that I do not think I want to have "a sense of authority", as that might give me a big head and lead me to do silly things. To conclude, I think it is far too general to be of any use, so keep the userbox for those who want to display it, but delete the category. --Bduke (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. as per Marlith. Like Bduke, I may have a conflict of interest, but WP often has a credibility problem; this would help against that.--Bedford (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Inclusion criteria too broad. I think it's great that these Wikipedians have published "something". But considering that such publication could be under any discipline or field, I am having an incredibly hard time imagining the collaboration value. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see the Wikipedia utility of seeking out users in this category. As per above, it is too broad, and the use of finding someone who simply has "something" published in an academic journal is suspect. The best use I could come up with is someone searching the category to get advice on how to get published, or writing tips for such publications. Neither of these uses help Wikipedia, however. Additionally, people will still be able to use "what links here" to see who is using the userbox if they are really determined to find users for such advice. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I dont list myself here, and dont intend to. But i find it interesting and useful in seeing who does, for it tell me something about their approach to editing and to Wikipedia, which is helpful in discussing articles and policy.. DGG (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in mobile to Category:Wikipedians interested in mobile telephony

Nominator's rationale: "Wikipedians interested in mobile" is just too ambiguous. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to something. Not entirely sure "mobile telephony" is the best choice, but it is better than the current name. Would certainly be open to other suggestions though. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• The category says that it scope is limited to an interest in mobile devices that can access the internet, which may be too narrow. Note that Category:Mobile is parent for both telephony and computing. Perhaps Portable communications device? Mobile device does not cover enough of what is intended, if its article is accurate. –Pomte 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps the solution is to expand the category's scope to include all wireless technology (Category:Wikipedians interested in wireless technology) or wireless communication (Category:Wikipedians interested in wireless communication)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Pomte's comments above.("Note that Category:Mobile is parent for both telephony and computing.") I think (based on several comments so far) that the inclusion criteria is vague at best, which means we would have no way to know what each Wikipedian intended when including themselves in this category. (Though it's currently a single user category. Another reason to delete...) No prejudice against recreation of something with a clearer name to match its inclusion criteria. - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Mitch Hedberg - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of Mitch Hedberg, a comedian. Except in rare cases, we should not have "fans of" categories for individuals, since their scope is generally too narrow for encyclopedic collaboration, and also because the article talk page is the single-most logical place for collaboration for biographical articles. If kept, it would set a precedent for separate "fans of" categories for each of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia. Also note that, despite being created over a year ago, the category still includes only one user. (Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete- ridiclous.--Dr Nat (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Devon Werkheiser fans - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of Devon Werkheiser, an American actor. Except in rare cases, we should not have "fans of" categories for individuals, since their scope is generally too narrow for encyclopedic collaboration, and also because the article talk page is the single-most logical place for collaboration for biographical articles. If kept, it would set a precedent for separate "fans of" categories for each of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia (I imagine that Playboy centerfolds would be especially well-represented). (Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Single or few-article categories in general are rarely necessary due to existence of talk pages. VegaDark (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and because it's actually vague (as we noted waaay back when it was renamed to this name). Is the category member a fan of the actor's work? Or a fan of the actor? (And though it's stretching it in this case, I can think of other actors which could have examples which could involve being a fan of the actor's belief(s); or preferred reading; or the actor's eponymous magazine or other periodical or series, including radio or television; or clothing/perfume/makeup/etc line of merchandice; or dance "moves"; etc etc etc) It just doesn't seem like a good idea. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename Category:Eguor editors to Category:Eguor Wikipedians - per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Naming conventions (Wikipedian sub-categories). - jc37 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not useful to Wikipedia. Rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is - A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds -- Ralph Waldo Emerson ... but if you insist, rename it, don't delete, seems useful to me (I'd be in it if I weren't in the corresponding admin category). ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is, use of term admin and placement in category structure is enough to cover guidance on naming conventions. Also, when did it become common practise for nominator to iterate their position twice? I wouldn't want to see debates become weighted as people constantly reiterate their position. Hiding T 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't Category:Eguor admins. You may have confused the two categories. Also, in CfD, these are "discussions", not keep/delete debates. As a result, it's not always clear what the intent of the nominator is. - jc37 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  Point taken re the category. Still think it's clear enough, but I won't let the door hit me on the arse on the way out. Any nominator who can't make their intentions clear in their nomination would worry me, to be honest. Like I say, I wouldn't want anything to get confused because a position has been iterated twice, which certainly seems to have happened here. I mean, you have said Rename twice, haven't you? I'm just wondering how you didn't think that was clear first time around. I don't get what the fact that this is UCFD has to do with anything. Either you were clear in your first iteration and don't need to clarify, or you weren't clear in your first iteration and, this being a wiki, you shoulod just edit that first iteration for clarity. Hiding T 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  In my opinion, no closer should ever count bolded text in determining consensus. So it shouldn't matter if I said Rename 50 times. That said, it can be considered confusing if such is done throughout a discussion, and so further comments are typically done as Comment, rather than reiterating rename. As for why I did it above, and typically do so in all CfD/UCfD nominations, I've already explained above. - jc37 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  No, you didn't actually explain why you did it. You said it's not always clear what the intent is. I'm not sure how it is not clear what you're intent was. Are you suggesting people don't read the nomination? Hiding T 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Also, maybe there's value in keeping this to editors. I don't know what the scope of the cat is, but I assume it is to mirror Eguor admins but be for those who aren't admins. If you rename this then it gets muddy over what Eguor admins is for and maybe it is best to keep the two distinct and let individuals sort themselves as they wish rather than attempt to push a de facto category. Don't agree with the deletion opinion,s this seems to follow in the tradition of the long established philosophy cats which the wider community find of use. For the record, 4 users are categorised here, category created 24 June 2007, and it isn't userbox fed. Hiding T 17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  We're all Wikipedians here. And admiship should be "no big deal". Whether admins should have a sub-grouping within the broader grouping of Wikipedians, can be discussed/nominated, I suppose, or not, at "editorial" discretion : ) - jc37 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  It's germane to the discussion, so I don't see any value in closing that avenue down. If tradition is that we categorise like this, then let's follow that tradition. Hiding T 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the sentiment, but don't think a category is needed for it. Per Vegadark, I'll be ok with a rename if there is no consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and, moreover, that treats Wikipedias as a battleground: e.g. "loyal opposition", "Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note - I left a neutral message pointing Anyeverybody, the creator of this category, and Durova, the creator of the "Eguor admins" category, to this discussion. --Iamunknown 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Defer to the community. Not quite a neutral comment here: I've received notification and want to acknowledge it. Thank you for informing me. Stepping back with a respectful nod to all editors here. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Defer also. Anynobody 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categori