Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008 

< December 2007 February 2008 >

Contents

January 25

Category:Wikipedians who like Rene Magritte

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 discussion was Delete - jc37 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Rene Magritte (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As per numerous past precedent, it is not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize by individual. VegaDark (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't say that the statement made by the nom is always going to be true. If there were a good number of articles specifically relating to one person then I could see such a category being used for collaboration. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete → nom. Snowolf How can I help? 21:03, 1 February 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.

January 24

Category:Wikipedians who like X

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 discussion was delete. →AzaToth 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like 2001: A Space Odyssey (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Dr. Strangelove (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Airplane! (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like High School Musical (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Gone With the Wind (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Spaceballs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Mrs. Doubtfire (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Memento (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Magnolia (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Precedent to delete this type of category at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project. As per that discussion, it does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual movies they like, as such categories would only facilitate collaboration on one or few articles (In this case, I realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey has more than one movie in the series, however there is no indication that this category is for those who like anything other than the original). Additionally, keeping such categories would allow for creation of thousands of similar categories, one for every movie out there. Further, categorizing "who likes" movies is unproductive for the encyclopedia as people who like movies by no means necessarily want to collaborate on them. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete categorizing by preference has its uses, but not when it get this specific. - Koweja (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Same thing applies to the others. - Koweja (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. If I had a category on my userpage for everything I liked, it would be nothing but categories. And as Vegadark points out, just because I like something doesn't mean I have the knowledge or desire to collaborate on it. --Kbdank71 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: All Wikipedians who like X discussions were merged on 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete all These categories are too narrow for collaboration. I support deletion of all of them, but might be persuaded by a strong argument for the two movies with sequels (2001 and Airplane), but I don't suspect that one will be forthcoming. Horologium (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope we don't have to go through this many more times. As I explained last time, there are like 17 pages related to High School Musical. Not checking the other films to make sure they don't have a substantial amount. –Pomte 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • High School Musical appears as good a name for the franchise as any other. According to High School Musical (disambiguation), that name could refer to 10 works. Any reasonable rename should be fine. –Pomte 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The category links to High School Musical, not the disambiguation page, so a rename to be more broad might not accurately reflect the user's intent. VegaDark (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have just expanded the scope of the category in a way that does not exclude any original intent, while encapsulating them all. –Pomte 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Users interested in collaborations can join or create projects instead. User:Dorftrottel 07:57, January 25, 2008
  • Delete all. But keep in mind that I do like X. And pickles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:55, 25 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.

Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons Movie

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 discussion was delete. →AzaToth 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons Movie (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Precedent to delete this type of category at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project. As per that discussion, it does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual movies they like, as such categories would only facilitate collaboration on one or few articles. Additionally, keeping such categories would allow for creation of thousands of similar categories, one for every movie out there. Further, categorizing "who likes" movies is unproductive for the encyclopedia as people who like movies by no means necessarily want to collaborate on them. Alternatively, merging to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons would be fine as well. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge, though I would say delete both the movie and franchise (though it isn't nominated, so either is acceptable for now). - Koweja (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments above. --Kbdank71 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (first choice) or merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons (second choice) as per VegaDark. An astonishing number of articles exist on Wikipedia which relate to The Simpsons, so a stronger argument exists for merging this into Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons, rather than simply deleting it as the above categories. I'm not going to go digging through the members to check, but I seriously doubt that there are any members of the movie group that would object to being categorized under the series group. Horologium (talk) 18:05, 24 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.

January 21

Category:Queer wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was moved to deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 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.

January 20

Category:Sandbox

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 - consensus is clear for this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Sandbox (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete, I don't see how this could possibly be needed. -- Prove It (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it doesn't really help collaboration. People should be using either the Wikipedia sandbox or their own, not looking for other people's to use. - Koweja (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Don't see why one would need to search for other sandboxes, which would be the whole point of a category. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use Wikipedia's or your own. Basically per Koweja. --Kbdank71 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Users can use their sandboxes to experiment with different concepts that they might not be too familiar with - such as learning to put together things like tables and templates before they think they would be able to sufficiently competent to create them in template/name space. It could be useful for experienced users to look through these pages, see what the user is trying to do and then offer help and advice. Guest9999 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Instead of having this be used for having a list of sandboxes, which I agree is pointless, it is a handy category to use for testing category alpha sort keys. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This brings up a good point. There are the official and unofficial sandboxen, which are essentially articles. Should we have a category sandbox to test category functionality? --Kbdank71 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not necessary to create a category page to use the category name to test category functionality. See Category:Foo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Which is fine for you or me, but someone who is new isn't going to know they can use that for testing. --Kbdank71 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Sandboxes shouldn't be categorized, and only four users have made use of it (out of the thousands of users with userspace works in progress). Horologium (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as unnecessary. User:Dorftrottel 07:59, January 25, 2008
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.

January 19

Category:Wikipedians who curse

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 discussion was Delete. The only argument put forward to keep this is that the category can lighten the mood on WIkipedia. However, the consensus within the debate disagreed with that, failing to find any collaborative use for the category. I believe anyone reading the debate will concur that the consensus is fucking obvious. Hiding T 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who curse (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Can't think of how it would be helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What a fuckin' useless category. It's a piece of shit. Delete. DS (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unhelpful Orderinchaos 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Sniperz11talk|edits 20:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: It does no harm, it's well within the rules and it brings a little light entertainment to an otherwise miserable bunch of &**#£&%*s. --WebHamster 21:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And doesn't everyone curse?  :) Anyway... I can't think of any collaborative use for this. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:36, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless, although I would include myself into Category:Wikipedians who believe that civility is overrated. User:Dorftrottel 19:08, January 20, 2008
  • Delete per nom. ChetblongTalkSign 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete serves to purpose. - Koweja (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fuckin' A, delete it. krimpet✽ 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Kbdank71 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not likely to facilitate collaboration. Guest9999 (talk) 22:43, 23 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.

January 17

Trout categories

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 discussion was much whacking and slapping with various flora and fauna of the depths. Looking through the debate and trying to discern something resembling consensus, I think the best we can all agree on is that Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping be renamed as Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Beyond that, there's no consensus to delete anything. To quote Monty Python, "Right stop this! You're getting far too silly". I'd advise leaving off nominating these for much for a while, simply because, to return to Python, "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Hiding T 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisting per Hiding's closing statement. I propose that these categories be renamed to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout whacking and Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking, respectively, in accordance with WP:TROUT and this discussion. :-) - ∅ (∅), 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Rename to "whacking", per nom. - jc37 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename second cat to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, keep slapping over whacking on both. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Traditionally, the usage has been "whacking". See also WP:TROUT, which is the source of the category reference. - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename/Merge Both to "Wikipedians", not bothered about whacking v. slapping —Ashley Y 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh - the regular nominations of one or the other "trout" categories is becoming tiresome. And, considering that many previous editors have expressed interest in it, I suggest all the more that those editors be notified. Now, to address the nomination: It is true that, traditionally, the usage at WP:TROUT has been "whacking"; it is also true that, traditionally, the usage at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and The Fish-Slapping Dance (most probably the inspiration for the original page) has been "slapping". Since no one has consulted with the people who actually use the category, I submit that the first category not be renamed and the second category be renamed to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. --Iamunknown 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Traditionally"? The admin (the older of the two) has been around all of a month. WP:TROUT has been around for over a year (and I believe that the usage of "whacking with a wet trout" predates that page). And I don't think either form had an source in The Fish-Slapping Dance. According to one admin, the word "slap" may have come from an IRC command. - jc37 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Have you asked the opinion of editors and admins who use the categories? --Iamunknown 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suppose (since we're being technical), we should note that "trout slapping" or "trout whacking" isn't clear if one is doing harm to the trout, or if the trout is doing the harm. Also, there is nothing about being whacked with a trout which is specific to adminship. Therefore... - jc37 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Category:Wikipedians open to being whacked with a wet trout, per Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout. (Though my first preference is still to delete as a potentially all-inclusive category.) - jc37 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and rename to Wikipedians open to.... WODUP 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I see no need the need to have both a Wikipedian and an admin category. Regarding slap vs. whack, I have no opinion. WODUP 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete them both and stop the nonsense. What purpose does this category serve? The most this category does is group editors who are willing to have a image of a trout on their talk page with the caption "Whack!" under it. If for whatever reason you keep the nonsense, merge the two categories and keep the crap to a minimum. — Save_Us † 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Rename to Wikipedians open to..., as there is no purpose served in this context to segregating the two. In re: Whacking versus Slapping, the thicker-sounding tonal qualities of a Whack (i.e. the proverbial "Wet Thud") have more depth than the sharp, higher pitched tone of a slap, and thus the Whack would appear to be superior for these purposes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename the second to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, leave the first alone per Iamunknown. east.718 at 00:22, January 22, 2008
  • Rename second per east718. And slap/whack all involved with a trout. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category: Wikipedians open to sea bass slapping - Clearly sea bass foster a more collaborative enviornment than trouts. After that, delete them both. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Rename to Category:Wikipedias open to being slapped with possibly still living sea life - I truly resent the divisiveness displayed above and the sheer bigotry of those who refuse to accept that I might want to sometimes be slapped with say a nice fat salmon or even a rather large bit of kelp.Wjhonson (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Close discussion and whack everyone involved in this discussion with a large wet trout, for wasting their time discussing this superfluous UCFD when they could have been working on the encyclopedia. Pointless user categories are not actually detrimental to the encyclopedia's quality, thus nominating it for deletion is considerably more pointless than the category itself. WaltonOne 13:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both. "Hey, I'm open to trout slapping." "Hey, me too." "Um, ok." Completely pointless. Collaboration is nil. Go do something constructive. --Kbdank71 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh for goodness sake. The admin category was created in three seconds to encourage admins to remember to be responsive to constructive criticism even if they were not open to the "recall" bureaucracy. What's the problem? Why do people keep wanting to make some issue of it...CfD...DRV and now this???? Any why not attempt to discuss it with those using it before running here? speedy close and slap/whack the nominator hard.--Docg 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Constructive criticism, like some of the comments above? Where is the category to encourage people to remember to WP:AGF? --Kbdank71 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, tell me, when an attempt to delete this has already been overturned, what is the good faith motivation of this new one?--Docg 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Did you even read the nomination, or just blindly vote to whack the nominator? It's not to delete, it's to rename. I wanted them deleted, as I believe they are useless. --Kbdank71 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both no indication of encouraging collaboration. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not so, I have indicated that the intention was to encourage admins to collaborate with constructive criticism.--Docg 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Then "Admins who will collaborate with constructive criticism" would be an appropriate name. Trout slapping is deliberately obscure, culturally biased and encourages violent language, all of which are detrimental to the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You take constructive criticism, you don't collaborate with it. --Kbdank71 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename - To decrease the possibility that trout-slapping might be seen by some out-culture editors as violent and obscure, I recommend a rename to Category:Wikipedias open to constructive criticism, without one bit of trout in itWjhonson (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want a Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism by all means create it as an alternative. If you want Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking create that too (here I'll even do it for you, since there is obvious demand). Violent? Get a grip!--Docg 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay mister person, now you've gone and forced me to do it. Category:Wikipedians_open_to_constructive_criticismWjhonson (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of us who will accept only trouts and not words, Category:Administrators not open to constructive criticism. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 24 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.

Category:Wikipedian autograph pages

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 discussion was No consensus. There's as many good arguments put forward to keep as there are to delete. Pomte makes a good point regarding a use for them, and since that isn't really answered, even though there are good arguments to delete the categories, there's no clear consensus on the lack of utility to the encyclopedia and the community building it, and thus no consensus to delete. Hiding T 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian autograph pages (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:NOT#SOCIAL. The old claim that such things should be tolerated as facilitating colloaboration and a positive community spirit are discredited e.g. by the fact that only a tiny minority wants them, and also by the verifiable fact that too many users included there also display a liking for fancy signatures rather than e.g. encyclopedic standards. User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

  • Delete category as it has nothing to do with collaboration. That said, it seems like you, Dorftrottel, are trying to get all of the autograph pages themselves deleted, rather than just the category. If that is the case, you need to nominate them at WP:MFD instead of here. Your reasoning probably won't be good enough as fancy signatures and things only used by a minority are acceptable. - Koweja (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You're partially right in that I'm generally opposed to the use of Wikipedia for socialisation that has nothing to do with creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. I probably wouldn't go so far as to put any such subpages up for deletion though. Deleting the category is sufficient to prevent the wrong impression that WP:NOT#SOCIAL doesn't matter anymore, and to clearly state that user categories even more than subpages in userspace should only exist to ease and facilitate collaboration. User:Dorftrottel 21:51, January 17, 2008
  • Weak keep - Noting that even User:Jimbo Wales has been known to sign such pages. As such, it's probably fair to keep the category for nav purposes. See also: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/May 2007#Category:Wikipedian Autograph Pages. - jc37 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Hm, yeah, Jimbo. I don't want to say that I sometimes doubt his good judgment, but as a matter of fact I do. User:Dorftrottel 21:42, January 17, 2008
    Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books, which also had a Deletion review. (Scroll down the page to find it.) - jc37 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    A major argument in the MfD was that the autograph pages themselves are in userspace. But having a category is another thing entirely. User:Dorftrottel 22:23, January 17, 2008
  • Keep as tracking category so the next time someone decides to nominate the pages, they can find most of them. This is ironically the non-mainspace collaborative purpose. Nom has not discredited its supposed advantage of bringing about a positive community spirit, as the interest in encyclopedic standards is not a necessary condition for this spirit. The fact that only a tiny minority wants them is positive, whereas deletion would be negative towards their purpose while they still exist. –Pomte 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting reasoning, similar to what you said at the last nomination. Do you suggest deletion of those user subpages? I don't particularly mind them and would probably never nominate such a page myself, and they would probably not be deleted anyway judging by the Autograph books MfD from last year. In my opinion, as long as they stay out of any serious encyclopedic area, people can have them. User:Dorftrottel 04:14, January 18, 2008
      • So if the pages are kept, then they supposedly serve some purpose, and WP:NOT#SOCIAL, by lack of consensus, doesn't apply to them as a whole, so a grouping of them should inherit this property. And if the MfD folk become aware of this, there'll be lots more keep votes here for the same reason. Category:Wikipedians appears to not be a serious encyclopedic area (any time there's wider community input on user categories, that's what they seem to say). It's odd how much time is spent interlinking these pages. The easiest way to prevent people from doing this is to have a centralized category for navigation. –Pomte 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • My point is that the category in and by itself specifically advances the use of Wikipedia for pure socialising. Per WP:NOT#SOCIAL, I'm admittedly not very fond of autograph pages, but having a user category for it should really be out of the question. What concerns me about your line of reasoning is that you IMHO appear to be trying to sound neutral in your assessment when you're actually in favour of discarding WP:NOT#SOCIAL as a general understanding among Wikipedians.
          "there'll be lots more keep votes" — This is not a vote, or so I hope. People arriving in force to keep their favourite aspect of Wikipedia from being properly deleted must be ignored unless they present valid arguments. Number should play no role. If a majority thinks WP:NOT#SOCIAL should be discarded, that's still a bad idea. That's the one single notion behind consensus-building. Present arguments, or don't post at all. Personal liking that has nothing to do with building and maintaining an encylopedic project can play no part in determining consensus.
          The matter of fact is that this category justifies questionable habits, serves no collaborative purpose, and should therefore be deleted fully independent from any user subpage MfD.
          "The easiest way to prevent people from doing this is to have a centralized category for navigation." — Be honest: have you ever made use of this category for that purpose? User:Dorftrottel 19:42, January 18, 2008
          • I don't see how signing a page is socializing or advances pure socializing. Typing a short message and four tildes is not directly a way to make friends or find people with similar interests. About the "advancing" part, the community still can and has deleted more improper uses of the user namespace.
          • Literally, there's nothing in NOT#SOCIAL about this. Whether autograph pages are "relevant to working on the encyclopedia" is as debatable as the case for userboxes, userpage bios, secret userpages, wikilove, smiles, user categories, etc. I'm not a sociologist and don't see evidence either way. Here's a hypothesis: When one's own autograph page receives signatures, one's encyclopedic spirit rises in turn increasing motivation, dedication, etc; signing another's autograph page is a way to keep cool from wikistress during a content dispute elsewhere. This is as convincing as your claim that "only a tiny minority wants them", which isn't backed up here.
          • If you think this category justifies questionable habits, get those habits deleted at source. You imply that fancy signatures are also questionable, and I would agree with you, except many prolific editors have ridiculous signatures as well, and some sign autograph pages.
          • Where NOT#SOCIAL says "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration," this is tricky again because having an autograph page as one of one's many user subpages doesn't make one's focus to be on social networking. An autograph page is certainly not by itself a foundation for effective collaboration, but it can be one of many factors in contributing to effective collaboration overall throughout the encyclopedia.
          • ILIKEIT keep !votes should certainly be ignored, but unfortunately that doesn't happen with some pages outside mainspace. It becomes a vote.
          • No, I haven't used this category for any purpose because I have no interest in autograph pages. But I have just used it to address the issue. –Pomte 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just a General reminder to editors, please note that the discussion is about the Category and not user autograph pages themselves.

    I created this category since I thought it would be a good idea to bring together all the wikipedians with such pages, since such a concept facilitates collaboration and better communication between wikipedia editors. For one, many pages could do with more experienced editors taking a look and improving that. And anyone who has created or tried to build a page knows how difficult that is. This offers one way of actually getting in more people and collaborating. The category helps by bringing together experience and channeling it.

    Wikipedia:NOT#SOCIALNET points out that "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." I think that this category does exactly that. As to the argument that its not effective in collaboration, I think we should not judge that so soon. Everything on wikipedia takes time to gain momentum, and coming to a decision about this less than 2 months after creation would be difficult. However, anything that brings together experienced editors is something that should be kept.

    The disadvantage is probably that it makes it easier for spamming, but I'd think that that is a minor irritant when looking at the obvious advantages of getting more people in touch. Plus, you need to discover an autograph page first to discover the category.

    Cheers,
    Sniperz11talk|edits 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Facilitates collaboration? How? VegaDark (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • "anything that brings together experienced editors is something that should be kept" — With all due respect, I don't see too many exceptionally experienced users in the category.
        "I think that this category does exactly that." — You're not stating what it is that makes you think so.
        "obvious advantages of getting more people in touch" — User categories should serve a purpose beyond simply "getting more people in touch", that's the very point of WP:NOT#SOCIAL. User:Dorftrottel 05:08, January 18, 2008
        • True, Dorftrottel. Right now, If I remember correctly, there are only around 30,000 regular editors (more than 100 edits a month) to wikipedia (out of 6 million registered users). Now, for over 2 million pages, thats a very small number of experienced editors. Your point about exceptionally experienced editors is not true. True, most users in the category have not gone beyond 1000 mainspace edits, but quite a few are very close. If we can get these users talking and discussing wikipedia, I think something can be accomplished.

          Whats more, far too many important pages lack experienced editors who can actually add substantial material. You may argue that there are other ways of getting help, but most of the time, the assistance is only with formatting and correcting grammer and organization; which is fine, but not very useful in improving start pages. In such cases, such communities surely help, since most editors who have their autograph subpages are experienced and regular editors to boot.

          User categories should serve a purpose beyond simply "getting more people in touch", that's the very point of WP:NOT#SOCIAL. Agreed, and true. Thats exactly what I referred to with spamming- simply saying hi isn't what this is for, and it shouldn't be encouraged. But when regular editors talk, it rarely goes beyond discussing wikipedia itself. Anything that brings these opinions together should, in my opinion, be encouraged. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
          • "If we can get these users talking and discussing wikipedia" — Wikipedia offers a great infrastructure to help people learn the ropes (e.g. the pages linked to from {{Welcome}} which can be found on virtually all new user talk pages) and provides the proper venues to discuss each and any aspect of it (e.g. WP:VP), seek help (e.g. WP:HD), or ask all sorts of questions related to editing (e.g. WP:EA). If you feel any link of extraordinary importance and helpfulness for new users is missing from the welcome template, just fix it.

            "You may argue that there are other ways of getting help " — Indeed, and all of them are better in that they are frequented by a far greater number of users, including many admins (there's only one single admin currently in the autograph category).

            "most of the time, the assistance is only with formatting and correcting grammer and organization" — Not true at all. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

            "improving start pages" — Start pages? Do you mean help with new articles? See e.g. Wikipedia:Your first article which provides useful information assembled by many users with extensive experience.

            "In such cases, such communities surely help" — Not to unnecessarily split hairs, but if you just assert this without providing any example, your point boils down to a mere assumption of yours.

            "most editors who have their autograph subpages are experienced and regular editors to boot." — We're discussing the category, and the majority of users included there is not very experienced. The fact that only one single admin has included himself is just one indicator of the truly unencyclopedic nature of this category. User:Dorftrottel 21:36, January 18, 2008
  • Delete contrary to my usual position on this sort of matter, I think these do harm the image of the Encyclopedia. They indicate an excessive concern for the social aspects and do not help even the most informal cooperation. I have friends here too, and I remember who they are, and keep track of them through my watchlist, and chat with them on email. We certainly do want users, and new users in particular to get in touch with other editors, but this is done by cooperation on projects and building and discussing articles. DGG (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as long as these pages exist as a tracking category per Pomte. Ideally I'd like to see these deleted as well, but as long as they are here I think the category is useful to group them. An argument for deleting would be that grouping makes it easier for editors to find such pages, thus further encouraging time wasting as opposed to actual encylopedia work. Another argument would be that a category "legitimizes" such pages, possibly encouraging the creation of more. An argument for keeping is that it makes it easier to find the next time an MfD comes along for these. I think the benefits of keeping slightly outweigh the costs, since I'd like to see these MfD'd again some time in the future. Editors that want to waste time signing every autograph page may very well just spend even more time trying to find such pages if this category is deleted, as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Per Jimbo Wales:

    "You keep asking how they [autograph pages] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"

    --ChetblongTalkSign 19:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • We're not discussing the autograph pages themselves here, this is not WP:MfD. This discussion is only about the category, so your reasoning is not valid as an argument in this discussion. User:Dorftrottel 20:36, January 20, 2008
      • True, but the nom you made is talking about the pages themselves. From my POV autograph pages help make a friendly environment among editors, therefore helping with building an encyclopedia. If I was to leave my POV behind on the matter, I could see how some people can misuse these pages and use them for purely social matters, but these pages can help Wikipedians know each other better and therefore can help collaboration among editors. This category helps in that respect by allowing editors find places where they can put a friendly greeting down and ~~~~, it's not a place to chat or have a lengthy conversation about things unrelated to Wikipedia since most editors only put their sig down once with a friendly message. I don't see how this hurts Wikipedia in any way and that's why I voted keep. ChetblongTalkSign 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • At any rate, the point about Esperanza in that quote is ironic. –Pomte 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It was agreed upon in the Signature page MFD that they could be kept, so long as there was nothing linking them to each other. · AndonicO Hail! 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's incorrect, the MFD was closed as no consensus. ChetblongTalkSign 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I don't have an opinion on the pages themselves, I don't think a category is needed. --Kbdank71 18:45, 23 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.

Category:Wikipedians by skill

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 discussion was keep as a group, without prejudice of re-nominating individual categories in the future. VegaDark (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by skill (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians by profession, and more trivial and subjective at that. The only half-way plausible subcategory which should definitely be kept is Category:Wikipedian translators (subcat of Category:Wikipedia translation). The rest should either be deleted or, if not already, included in Category:Wikipedians by profession instead. [See detailed proposal above] User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

  • Neutral note - If you wish to have any of the subcats modified as a result of this nomina