Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 18

==August 18==

=== (from Aug 18)===

Okay, this I can see the point of, however it subdivides pedians into baby boomers millenials , gen X / gen Y and teenagers , which is a pretty weird scheme. Propose renaming all of it to Wikipedians by birth year (or by decade, I suppose). 10:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all A waste of scarce server resources. Wikipedia is not a social club. 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete this and other useless and distracting categorisation listed above. 23:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Check out the CfD talk page so we can make some guidelines regarding deleting wikipedians categories. - 01:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. The scheme makes sense from a pop-culture standpoint, but it would be better to use the suggested by decade scheme. 02:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this is painfully stupid. 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep or rename on basis of decade. Do not delete; what s the harm 05:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep all but 2005-08-21 T 05:03:24 Z **Why not those, specifically 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete I like most of the Wikipedian cats, but this one is pointless. 07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete: I agree with Who. 02:07, 2005 August 24 (UTC) *Delete all Irrelevant. 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC) *NOTE: The subcats that aren t empty were not tagged for deletion, so I m keeping them open for a few more days. -- 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I don t care if this is refactored, but I have put 05:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I believe further user categorization can t be anything but helpful to the community at large. I know that I ve encountered other young Wikipedians through the category. I agree with Jmabel s observations. 08:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

10:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. -- 13:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. What Jmabel said. - 19:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Jmabel. If deleted, a Wikipedians by birth decade or similar scheme would be really nice. Even if it strikes you as useless, where s the harm if people want to put it on their page These are in use. ~~ ) 21:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but rename to specific decades. With just Millenial Wikipedians or Teenage Wikipedians there might be confusion with Wikipedians of the year 3000, for example. -- 21:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC) **Presumably, we should have removed ourselves from the list by then. 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Neutralish - Since wikipedians by generation was deleted, I don t see a use in having these anymore. I would agree with a system by decade instead of this, but I don t see any harm in it. Wikipedians in the year 3000 We have 995 years to fix that. ;) -- ) 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, or at most change the schema. It may be useful for an user to classify himself as a certain age group. Yes, it does create server load, but if the problem is only this, we could replace it with a list instead of a category. (And there are much dumber categories which waste as much or more server load.) As for the schemata, I personally like more the current one, but I wouldn t object to change to one organized by decades if this is what most people want.-- 22:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per my vote at ) 22:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, and organize by decade. -- 23:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, *Keep. I think changing to a decade system is a good idea, but I also think that e.g. 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, there is no harm in this category. Meanwhile to answer the agruement about Wikipedians in the year 3000, I imagine by then we ll have a better name for the generation than Millenial Generation, since that seems to come in retrospect. I think it s worth keeping because it matches up with the article then. Also, I vote this way on an altered interpreation of the 05:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. More egotistical, cliquish, adolescent and age-ist nonsense. 03:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename as nominated -- 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Difficult to maintain, largely redundant with 22:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Question: what do we do with those that lived in both centuries Is living and dead easier, with dead a parent to the by-century-of-life categories - 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **I think we can fairly assign many philosophers to the century they worked in; I do not think 16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ***Good point. Rename to 21st century as above and below. Personally, I prefer the hyphen, but since cat redirects don t work and it would make it harder to find, I suppose I will live without one. - 23:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename 03:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep or rename to 09:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC) :: Mel Etitis had pointed to structural flaw with this kind of categorisation. Perhaps different structuring of philosophers should be used. E.g. painters are structured as 02:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 21st century. Categorizing people as living or dead is kind of silly. We have the century-border problem with every century, so with this one as well. I believe a philosopher can conceivably be both. Date of birth and death should be irrelevant; date of release of any famous manuscripts should be the criterion. 15:27, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Keep. 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

All the volcanoes in this category are not in the United Kingdom, but in the UK s overseas territories. I think it would be much more useful to categorise the current contents under 21:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge per nom. 22:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - it simply needed populating, that s all. 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **comment - There has been no volcanic activity in the United Kingdom for millions of years - might be a bit difficult to populate!! 08:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ***Nor in Germany, nor Belgium - yet these long dead volcanoes are in the respective Volcanoes of categories. Similarly, Otago Harbour is in the New Zealand category, and that had better not go off (for the first time in 20 million years), since I live in the crater! 01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Grutness, but observe that some entries do still need removing. I think. - 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep: Many features are classified by country; I don t know how much interest London has in this but those with an interest in one UK island may be interested in neighboring ones. ( 06:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)) *Keep. Renaming to f.e. Volcanoes of the overseas territories of the United Kingdom would be quite difficult. :) -- 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Well, then all the ones that are not in the United Kingdom will have to come out. Overseas territories of the United Kingdom are simply not in the United Kingdom, any more than India was in England when it was part of the British Empire. 00:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, and split those in overseas territories (and crown territories as well, if there s any) to (a) separate category/ies. — 13:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC) *Keep - there are other countries where a volcanic eruption hasn t occurred for millions of years, and yet these have Volcanoes of ... categories. The active volcanoes may not be in 00:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

===Honolulu, Hawaii===

Merge. 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Move 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)) *Merge per nom. - 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge non-controversial change. 02:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC) : Also see CFD: 01:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)) *Merge per nom. 18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename to 02:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Created 14 August. Someone s personal list of buildings and structures they think represent the UK. Belongs in a guidebook. Delete. 15:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment I tend to agree, it seems POV, however, when I see those particular items, I do think of the UK. Same goes for 16:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **Would it be a good idea to merge these two lists We still need to satisfy 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ***Definitely don t merge. The icons category is a useful way of categorising things that would otherwise clutter up the main category, but the other one is redundant was we have all the necessary buildings categories for the UK. 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per Splash; inclusion criterion is POV. I d also be interested to learn what a cultural icon is exactly, shouldn t that be British celebrities 15:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC) **Comment Cultural icon is a well known phrase, and not the same as celebrity at all. 12:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename as nominated -- 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

#Rename to match #Although it varies in dictionary terms, Wikipedia has 15:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. Regardless of whether or not the hyphen is preferred, the current spelling is clearly not. 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, but prefer a hyphen. - 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, absolutely no hyphen, for consistency with article ) 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC) **Systemic bias. British English (or at least my English English) would prefer the hyphen. Not important, though. - 23:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ***I actually kind of agree with you, but I commented on the previous Cfr about its variations. Google even converts to non-hyphenated version. I just want to standardize, reguardless of the hyphen. The last one didnt use it, so may as well not use it here either. 07:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty, marked for deletion by 15:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Empty. I can t fathom what this was meant to refer to. 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC) :* Possibly to a fictional nation called Dalia which had the old English 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ::*That does clear things up. Still, my vote stays the same as it s empty and redundant. 02:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete empty cat — ) 22:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep and populate - Dalia (now 01:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Okay - I understand now. The nominator emptied this category of its five articles and started to create the more correctly named , but didn t finish the job (the category link was red-lined). I ve completed the task by creating the new category. , which uses the Latin name for the province, should be deleted. 01:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment the article referenced above 02:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename as nominated -- 13:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the United Kingdom economy category, with 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment, not everything in the cat is economics: it includes some companies and things. Still, with those moved elsewhere, this rename could go ahead. - 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Economy does not imply economics . Oftentimes they seem to work independent of each other :). UK companies are certainly part of the UK economy. - 22:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That s a misunderstanding. It is not called Economics in the United Kingdom . It serves the same purpose as the other National Economy categories. This should be a totally non-controversial change. Anyone who is opposed to it is saying all the others are wrong too. 00:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

*Rename to match article. 07:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Several United Kingdom politics categories===

merge all as nominated -- 13:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

An ISP address joined us for a few hours on the 13th August and made a frightful mess of the main United Kingdom menu in the rather unusual cause of publicising the Scottish independence movement and the Welsh independence movement and the English independence movement. (S)he created duplicate categories, made categories parent-categories of their own parents, and overpromoted just about every article and subcategory related to these issues to the main UK menu. I have started sorting out this mess. There are two duplicate categories that need merging:

and delete

and delete

The user also created three categories independence categories which I believe are pov. They are certainly redundant as they contain the same contents as the matching politics categories, though I have already started to deal with this. They should be merged and deleted:

and delete.

and delete.

and delete.

14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

*Merge all. -- 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge all -> delete 14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge all and Delete per nom. 17:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge and delete per nom. My personal POV on this issue would lead me to abolish the parliaments and assemblies and merge the cats in 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge and delete the following: English Politics into Politics of England / Scottish Politics in to Politics of Scotland. Keep Scottish/Welsh/English independence categories. -- 12:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC). **I should add that I think the creation of the Scottish, Welsh and English Independence categories is acceptable as a subcategory of the appropriate Politics of X category (although I was previously unaware that England wanted independence) -- 12:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC) ***The fact that you are saying that this category has made you aware that England wants independence (which is the view of only a tiny minority, though I happen to be sympathetic with it myself, so I m not trying to suppress views I disagree with here), shows exactly why it is an inappropriate biased pov category. Could the closing admin please take this evidence of the anti-neutrality effect of the name into account. Thank you. 12:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge and delete as per proposer -- 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge and delete all as above. 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

11:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I thought this looked 15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat that duplicates ) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC) Furthermore, inconsistent with article name ) 19:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. — ) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete duplicate category.-- 12:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

*I have to ask, what is the standard I see both uses in 15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

reverse merge: As mentioned below in 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

To the best of my knowledge, CITY, STATE (or CITY, PROVINCE ) is usually a dab where there s some possibility of confusion (e.g. 08:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

*Merge in reverse per SEWilco. I would prefer to just have New York City , but consensus seems to indicate the need for CITY, STATE. 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment.There has been massive and long-standing consensus on the New York City article (see the archives of 21:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Categories are used differently than articles. The New York City article discussion has been about the article title; search the discussions for category . ( 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

**** Comment. There is no good reason for the category name to be different from the article name here. 01:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ***** Comment. 02:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC) ****** Comment. Obviously, my point is that it s not listed next to cities in other U.S. states where someone might construe that , New York might be informative (which it wouldn t be anyway).-- 02:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC) ******* Comment: The link to 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)) ***** Comment: Having a name ( New York City ) which is dependent upon being viewed within another category ( New York ) violates 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)) ***** Comment. 07:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The shorter and simpler 16:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; the CITY, STATE naming format is not the convention for all city-related categories; it s the convention for city-related categories that need to be disambiguated from other city-related categories . That need isn t applicable here. 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I must have missed that convention. Where is it described Or is it only used for major cities Trying without testing: 01:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

***THat s category Mumbai, not Bombay. 18:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC) : Also see CFD: 01:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

===Users by OS===

no consensus (no change) -- 14:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Needless categorization. I shudder to think how large the cat:Wikipedian Windows users would be. Same argument as the above, plus it s overcategorization into tiny details. What s next, Wikipedians who own a laptop 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nom. Hey, I wanted to be in Wikipedians who own a laptop ;) 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. — ) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

*Comment I think there should be an article (or a few articles) about Wikipedians by insert quality here . There would be a lot of different qualities in one article. 10:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *keep there ARE a tonne of lists, they are unwieldy and as such 13:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all. -- 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep all. If people want to categorize themselves this way, who are you to say they shouldn t There are dozens of people in these categories. You re really going to edit all their user pages to remove them from their own categories, in which they chose to be This is ridiculous. — • 2005-08-18 17:21 **Delete He s a user with as much right to express his opinion as you. Wikipedia is not a social club and its scarce resources (editing is a nightmare at the moment) should only be used for things that contribute to the improvement of its content. A bot will do the edits. 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment. More feedback from the wikiproject would help resolve this ongoing issue, though the analogy made to user pages is specious. 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep. This one is directly useful in solving the recurrent Your symbol doesn t show up on my browser discussion 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **Please explain how this (sparsely populated) category can be of help in solving the issue Such an issue should require a simple FAQ some place in the Wiki; it is irrelevant with which users precisely it occurs. 10:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete ALL categories by OS, by age, by browser, by sexual habits, by whatever other garbage. I am in favor of banning /all/ categories that apply only to Wikipedia editors and do not contribute to quality of articles, the other way is what I see now and here. 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I m getting tired of this. Discussion started on CfD talk page. - 01:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all. With a few rare exceptions, encyclopedia editors are not encyclopedic enough to deserve their own category. 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Potentially very useful for finding other editors about technical issues related to using wikipedia. For example, lately there is a push to introduce smart quotes to editing. If those who have an issue with this come from simular platforms, that is usable info. Do not delete. 05:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep as per 2005-08-21 T 05:14:05 Z *Keep for the good reasons given above. Agree that it would be helpful in discussing and solving technical issues related to reading and editing wikipedia. 04:56, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

===Wikipedians by web browser===

no consensus (no change) -- 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Another needless category scheme. Listify if you must, but per 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep why not Again I ask what possible problem does such categories in the User: namespace cause And I respectfully disagree that lists are better than categories for things like this. Disclaimer: I created this particular umbrella a couple of weeks back, so my bias to keep is obvious. -- 12:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all It contributes to the huge problem with server capacity. Editing is once again a nightmare. Wikipedia s overstretched resources should only be used to improve the encyclopedia. 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment Server capacity is fine, the problem is probably the number of concurent users, and no amount of deletions will solve that. Besides last I checked official policy was that Wikipedia is not paper (ergo space concerns alone are no reason to delete). -- 18:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all. -- 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep all. If people want to categorize themselves this way, who are you to say they shouldn t There are dozens of people in these categories. You re really going to edit all their user pages to remove them from their own categories, in which they chose to be This is ridiculous. *Comment. We should probably have a wider discussion on the issue of wikipedian categories. 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **I agree with this. These categories are getting out of control, IMHO. 21:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please write my talk page if you start one. 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. This one is directly useful in solving the recurrent Your symbol doesn t show up on my browser discussion 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Strong keep. What s with today s move against letting people categorize themselves if they want to Regardless, this one could, as noted above, solve some issues, and could also result in some interesting statistical data. - 01:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Convert to Lists. Useful information from a useability standpoint, allowing users to be recruited for cross-browser testing at times when new WikiMedia software releases are pending. 02:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete with prejudice. This is complete vanity and is not of interest to the users of an encyclopedia. *Keep. Potentially very useful for finding other editors about technical issues related to using wikipedia. For example, lately there is a push to introduce smart quotes to editing. If those who have an issue with this come from simular platforms, that is usable info. Knowing which browsers a fellow editor has access to may help immensely in discussing and solving technical issues or in getting opinions on how symbols, page layout, and other edits look across platforms. Do not delete. 05:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep as per 2005-08-21 T 05:08:13 Z *Keep for the very good reasons given above. 04:53, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

===LGBT Wikipedians===

rename as per nomination -- 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Propose merging/renaming to GBLT LGBT Wikipedians for consistency, NPOV etc. 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. Keep the current name which is much more easy to understand; if it were to change, then it should be to LGBT Wikipedians as this order is the usual one, but I still think it an ugly acronym while queer is a fabulous word. I also object to merging the categories of Queer Wikipedians and Bisexual Wikipedians as they are not the same thing. 10:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **I meant LGBT, oops. Note that the vast majority of queer-related categories in Wikipedia use LGBT . Also note that Bisexual Wikipedians is empty. 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Rename Queer to LGBT, delete Bisexual as empty. -- 14:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment Most of these were created by the same user, three days ago - which may explain why they re empty or almost empty. -- 17:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete It is not constructive to divide contributors up into camps on controversial issues. I don t want to be told about users political affliations either, and ideally all their edits would be so neutral that it would be impossible to guess them. 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC) :* You don t appear to have understood the nature of the category. It s not a category of Wikipedians who support a particular issue, it s a category of Wikipedians who share a sexual orientation. The issue here is not that this is an organisation of Wikipedians by POV (the POV is on whether the word queer is an acceptable term and to be preferred to LGBT ), and there is no comparison to be made with political opinions . 17:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ::*Moreover, it s entirely voluntary. No one is forced to declare their sexual orientation or political affiliation, and no one is forced to investigate the sexual orientations or political affiliations of those who have declared by looking at this category. 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC) :::*I understand the issue perfectly well and my vote stands. This is also a waste of scarce server resources. Wikipedia is not a dating club. 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ::::*Excuse me but I consider that last comment highly offensive. I hope you will withdraw it. 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ::::Nobody thinks it is a dating club, and the server resources issue is not related to storage capacity. 17:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge per nom. 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to LGBT. The basic question is why we would want Wikipedians to voluntarily put ourselves in categories which may seem arbitrary or POV. I can think of several reasons. One is that we can be recruited to work on articles and meet others with similar interests. An LGBT person might be interested in working on an LGBT article, etc. But the best reason I can think of is that it tells other Wikipedians that we have a potential to be biased. I am of the gereration that bristles when I hear the word queer , so I haven t listed myself in this category. If renamed to LGBT, I will put myself in the category. People editing articles who get to my user page will know of my potential bias, just as I would like to know of theirs. By putting myself in the category I am saying this is who I am, I will try to edit fairly and in a NPOV way, but let me know if I slip up. -- 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **I m also agreeable to keeping and adding LGBT as a new category. (I assume queer would be a subcategory) -- 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Oppose People have added themselfes to a cat named Queer and LGBT is not quite the same thing. This is an identity issue, and renaming this cat would mean imposing an identity on people. How about, say, intersex people, or pansexual or genderqueer ones All not necessarily covered by LGBT . -- 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *New proposal: Since we re talking about a category of wikipedians, not articles, why not just create 00:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename Queer to LGBT and delete bi-sexual as included in LGBT. 02:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Note that this was originally created in part because some Wikipedians insisted on adding their userpages to 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Keep or rename to GLBT Wikipedians. Do not delete. 05:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment:No objection to adding an extra category for LGBT or whatever, but if any non-blank categories are deleted (or replaced with something else), would it be too much to ask that the category tag be simply removed from the affected userpages, not replaced with some other/new tag unless the user specifically wants (or adds) that new tag there There are many subtle differences in meaning here and this topic is a hot potato. -- 17:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to LGBT WP for reasons given above. 04:52, 2005 August 22 (UTC) *Merge per nom. 07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Wikipedians by sexual orientation===

Delete all. 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This, however, is a joke and this entire category tree should go. Very strange categorization, to say the least. 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all. -- 14:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all. No benefit in this sort of controversial categorisation. (And I don t see much in any Wikipedian categories). 16:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Delete. 05:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per 18:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to something more suitable. I am personally opposed to the politics of the third category, but I believe in letting both sides have a voice. However, I believe it should be renamed. - 07:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

===Wikipedians by handedness===

Delete all. 02:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous category. Listify if you really must, but not every physical or mental attribute requires a cat, and certainly not for our users. 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all. -- 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete all Pointless. 16:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I started a discussion about wikipedians categories on the talk page. Throw in your two cents. - 01:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Notable attribute Sometimes, but not when applied in this manner. 02:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, vanity, non-notable. 11:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This one s just a forum for left-handers to show off. 00:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: Ohmygosh, you mean this is a sinister plot 17:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete I like most of the Wikipedian cats, but these are frivolous. 07:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 02:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory, POV, OR. Also, only used by a heavily self-promoting Wikipedian to list himself. 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, frivolous 21:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, vandalism — ) 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC) **Besides, it was created by a blocked user - ) 22:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Wikipedians categories discussion has begun on the talk page. Two cents welcome. - 01:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete all, these serve no purpose. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per objections above. 02:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. vandalism. 04:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

===Washington, D.C. related categories===

no consensus (no change) -- 15:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Because Washington, D.C. is the more common name than District of Columbia (in fact District of Columbia does redirect to Washington, D.C.), I propose the following deletions or renaming:

**Redundant to

**Seems to be redundant to : 06:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverse merge: Washington, District of Columbia follows standard patterns and it should absorb the older category. Categories are not article names. Also per : Always write these out in full .

*# . *# pattern. *# The District of Columbia happens to only have a single city, and neighborhoods are a different category. *: Creator of listed categories. ( 07:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)) *A poll at 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Merge in reverse per SEWilco. 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *KEEP 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Urgh, I don t what the debate is or which proposal to vote per . So I vote to expand the acronym and take the relevant consequential action, unless someone points out something wrong with that. - 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge to 03:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

: Also see CFD: *Merge to 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Gather under 04:47, 2005 August 22 (UTC) *Merge all District of Columbia categories into relevant Washington, D.C. or Washington, District of Columbia category. They have been identical for over a century and Washington, D.C. is much more common in English. -- 01:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC) **They may have been covered the same area for over a century, but the category will group historical entries before that date, or areas such as Alexandria which were never part of Washington. And even for more contemporary entries, there is a logical distinction between the City and the District. As said above, it is not the City that seeks statehood, it is the District. 02:12, 2005 August 24 (UTC) ***Actually, the city and the District both seek statehood, though I find it odd to talk about them as if they are seperate things; they aren t. District of Columbia redirects to 15:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC) *Merge to

=== ===

Delete. 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

One article was on VfD, which decided to merge to 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete now. 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete don t see much point in the cat to begin with. Unless its some famous strip of pubs, and they all have articles, other than that pointless. 05:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here