Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19

< June 18	June 20 >

June 19

Category:US primetime network series that ran over ten years

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Listify and Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a category that would be better served by a list. Also too narrowly focused: why exclude non-primetime series or syndicated series? MakeRocketGoNow 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per nom. David Kernow 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; entirely arbitrary category. Anyone who wants a list can knock themselves out of course. Postdlf 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Choreographies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Superfluous category. No articles listed, and "choreographies" is a rather obscure term. Editor at Large 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not sure a choreography lends itself to description by a text-based encyclopedia article... David Kernow 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jews and Judaism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Judaism - sub categories of this overweight category include "Anti- Semitism", "Jewish History", "Judaic Studies in Academia" and "Jewish Education". These sub-categories have no more affinity to "Jews and Judaism" than they do to "Judaism" and this category just hinders efficiency, is a nuisance to the many confused people (even experienced wikipedians) and in my view, wholly unecessary. Merging with Category:Judaism - which is and deserves to be the central and absolute super-category for ALL things relating to Judaism, is a long overdue measure. Many thanks, Nesher 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 4 counter-arguments of mine below - especially last one - Nesher
- Oppose and Keep Category:Jews and Judaism (As the original creator of this parent super-category [1] in June 2004 I am placing my vote and comments here as a juxtaposition to the above short-sighted and misguided proposal) -- because this parent super-category has served a great function for two years! Merging into Category:Judaism would create confusion and force only a religious interpretation of all matters relating to Jews, something which is not always true at a time when the majority of the world's Jews are not religious in their observance of Judaism. This parent super-category was the solution to a very serious dilemma: How to inter-connect topics/categories relating to Jews who are secular and secular Jewish subjects/categories with Judaism which is purely a RELIGION only without compromising the integrity of either sub-category?! Category:Jews and Judaism creates a unified and unifying super-CATEGORY for two diverse sub-categories/subjects Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. If only Category:Judaism remains then the problem would remain how to legitimately link Jews and Judaism without compromising on the secular/religious dichotomy. In the same way, there are TWO main articles on this subject: Jew AND Judaism (see the introduction of those articles to understand this) and why they are NOT merged because of the simple truth that being a Jew is related to ETHNICITY (regardless of religious practice or beliefs) as well as Jewish religious law, whereas Judaism is only a religion. Thus Keep Category:Jews and Judaism and do NOT merge for the simple reason that Jews and Judaism are NOT always equal subjects/categories. Not all Jews and Jewish subjects are related to or connected to Judaism, and Judaism is not always part of the lives of Jews! IZAK 04:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment by nom - Whether to your liking or not, Jews only exist because of Judaism. Hence, it is entirely self-defeating to make Judaism a sub-category of Jews - tantamount to making "beverages" into a sub-category of "tea". Please, at least evaluate this in an unjaundiced fashion, without resorting to emphatically emotional stereotypes and personal terms. "This parent super-category was the solution to a very serious dilemma" - what dilema! Its astoundingly simple; the way to "inter-connect topics/categories relating to Jews who are secular and secular Jewish subjects/categories with Judaism" is to have the former as a subcategory of Judaism! As another user tellingly pointed out, Category:Muslims is a sub-category of Category:Islam, just as Category:Christian people is a sub-category of Category:Christianity and Category:Hindus is a subcategory of Category:Hinduism. Only the Judaism categories are in such a mess! Need I go on? Nesher
    - Nesher: Firstly, no need to be so deprecating, the categories are not a "mess". Secondly, please do not state falsely that we are making "Judaism a sub-category of Jews" when no such thing is happening here. This is what it's about: It is simple: BOTH Category:Jews and Category:Judaism are clear and logical sub-categories of a larger WIKIPEDIA parent category that is named Category:Jews and Judaism, which is not so difficult to grasp -- that's all. Thirdly, these present categories are not meant to be a grandiose theological judgment or a mystical realigment of the stellar constellations that somehow effects Jewish destiny as you are making it out to be -- far from it -- this is simple editing and categorizing in what is after all a secular online encyclopedia. Fourthly, questions such as if there can be no Judaism without Jews or vice versa, or if Judaism contributes more to the Jews than the other way around -- these points are not what need to be settled here via your attempts to squeeze everything into Category:Judaism which will only result in giving that category indigestion and cause it to short circuit. Fifthly, your other point/s abouts Christians and Muslims also does not apply here. There's no such thing as a "secular Christian or Muslim" because being a Christian or Muslim means only just that (because they are religions ONLY) -- But in the case of Jews it's different since being a Jew is both a religious AND and an ethnic fact. Thus while Judaism refers to the Jewish religion, yet being only a Jew alone also legitimately implies being part of an ethnic group (by just being being born Jewish, for example) that need not be connected to the practice or acceptance of Judaism as a religion because being Jewish has BOTH ethnic and religious connotations unlike in Christianity or Islam which are religions only with ethnicity NOT a criterion. (This is clearly explained in the Jew article -- please read it sometime soon!) Sixthly, from your comments it is obvious that you are not aware of what Wikipedia's system of categorization is about. Please read Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization. Seventhly, no-one is making any judgment of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" This is merely a system for categorizing knowledge and information (in this case articles). Thus there is a category that focuses on the Jews mainly called Category:Jews, and there is also a category that focuses on Judaism mainly called Category:Judaism. Eighthly, now it is because there is so much diverse, and even contradictory information (yes, it's a dilemma) in these two differing types of categories that it would be impossible according to all the rules of logic and fact to create a "one size fits all" category out of Category:Judaism alone. Ninthly, that is where the beauty and functionality of the system of categorization comes into the picture whereby a larger parent category called Category:Jews and Judaism comes into play whereby both categories can co-exist side by side happily and truthfully. That's all -- do not read more into the "tea leaves" because there are none here. Finally, you are trying to make this into a "do or die" battle about the supremacy of Judaism, but that is not the question here. The only issue is the best system of organizing the information about these subjects on Wikipedia using it's system of categories. For more help on this subject you may also want to read up on Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorisation FAQ. Thank you. IZAK 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. My preference is that this be merged with Category:Judaism per nom, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments that it should be merged the other way. But having both cats seems silly and redundant. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, why not take a look at what is in Category:Jews alone and then Category:Judaism alone (and see why they can BOTH be sub-categories of a parent category like Category:Jews and Judaism but NOT of Category:Judaism on its own.) Do you honestly think that it's right that Category:Jewish sportspeople or Category:Jewish cowboys or Category:Jewish anarchists or Category:Jewish film directors should feed straight into Category:Judaism? It would make absolutely no sense to do so according to any criteria of Judaism alone. Now that would be not just "silly and redundant", but hysterical and ludicrous. Please consider this seriously. IZAK 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment by Nom - IZAK, you are "short-sightedly" placing "Jews" on an equal pedestal with "Judaism" when that is clearly not the case. It is patently obvious to anyone willing to listen that Judaism came before Jews and is what makes a Jew a Jew - whether that Jew likes it, observes it, fathoms it, or not. Clearly, the Christian, Muslim and Hindu categorisers have no trouble understanding this concept. Nesher 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "It is patently obvious to anyone willing to listen…" borders on an ad hominem attack on those who disagree with you. It changes nothing and proves nothing. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Point taken - Nesher 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nesher: I do not really wish to engage you in a theological debate, but I can easily refute you. I think you are confusing a Godly perspective with the perspective of human beings. While Jews worship God, they are unable to understand the way God runs the world. Thus Jewish history can be seen and understood from the narrative of human events and not just by insights into quasi-mystical interpretations posturing as having "inside information" to other-worldly visions and perspectives which you are clearly alluding to as I understand your urgument/s here to be. Perhaps others may not sense the direction you are coming from, but I do, and I disagree with your approach and its suitability for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a yeshiva for Torah study where Daat Torah of Torah Judaism must prevail at all costs -- even if I wish it could be so, it could never be, as things stand, unless the Jewish Messiah were to turn up tomorrow and take over the Internet to teach Judaism his way. Rather, you need to grasp that Wikipedia is a secular online encyclopedia that must accomodate all views, for better or worse. Furthermore, in the Torah there is no such thing called "Judaism" as such because it was formulated much later in history and then named for only one of Jacob's sons Judah (each of the 12 Israelite tribes in fact had its own forms of "Judaism"!) "Judaism" is thus named for those connected with the Tribe of Judah who founded the later Kingdom of Judah and Judea. Indeed, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Children of Israel lived long before anyone ever thought there would ever be something called "Judaism" many millenia after they had died. Scholars know that in fact "Judaism" is not even a "religion" as such -- it's not even a "Jewish word" since Jewish texts like the Tanakh, Talmud; Shulkhan Arukh or rabbinic literature do not refer to the "religion" of the Jewish people as Yahadut ("Judaism") -- they simply assume that Jews observe the 613 mitzvot ("commandments") as a DOGMA that has no name more than anything ! (Religious Jews today do not ask if someone observes "Judaism", rather it's "Is the person "shomer Shabbat?" or "shomer Torah U'Mitzvot" or a "yerei shamayim" (one who "fears heaven") and suchlike, but it is never if this person observes Yahadut ("Judaism") and no-one in their right mind would say, that based on this, that all articles about Jews and Judaism should thus become sub-categories of Category:Shabbat or Category:Names of God in Judaism!) So, the Children of Israel, later called the Hebrews, and eventually called the Jews are commanded by God to practice and follow in the Torah to live according to its 613 mitzvot (in fact there were more but not all applied for all time.) In fact, Abraham started out life as an idol worshiper and NOT as a "Jew" at all, and he is considered the FATHER of the Jewish people, together with Isaac and Jacob according to classical Judaism itself. Additional dilemmas, according to the midrashim of Judaism, include the fact that Abraham fathered Ishmael the founder of Islam and Isaac fathered Esau who established Rome and its offshoot the Roman Catholic Church. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and the Children of Israel are human people of flesh and blood, and according to the Torah itself, they had as much to do with the formation of Judaism, as their belief in God (which should not be confused with the totality of Judaism) guided them to do in their lives. True, God is infinite and He can exist without the Jews, but it does not run counter to anything in Judaism itself to say that there can be no Judaism without Jews in the sense that there can be no king without subjects. IZAK 07:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        IZAK: Sorry, but the impressions I'm getting here are pretty vague. I didn't know and would like the mekor for "each of the 12 Israelite tribes in fact had its own forms of "Judaism"". Secondly, I fail to see how this relates to the discussion at hand, rather, it is a long-winded and far-off-the-point tangent. Thirdly, your point that "scholars know that in fact "Judaism" is not even a "religion" as such... Religious Jews today do not ask if someone observes "Judaism", doesn't hold water, at least in my eyes. " I'd venture to say - nay, I'm fairly confident that religious Christians today do not ask if someone observes Christianity, but rather if they believe in xyz and do xyz and go to xyz on xyz. Similiarly, religous Hindus today do not ask if someone observes Hinduism. So, you seem to have left me more perplexed than before. Any explanation welcome. Many thanks, Nesher 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Nesher: As I said, I would like to avoid a theological debate, and I would be glad to answer the questions about the seemingly unrelated tangents elsewhere. But on your last question, all I was pointing out was that clasically and historically, the Jewish religion was not called "Yahadut" ("Judaism") by the Jews who practiced it (and "Yiddishkeit" was a rather colloquial Yiddish expression never used in a learned sense.) Rather, "Judaism" is the name that the outside world uses to describe and identify the religion of the Jews, and which Jews have adopted as well out of convenience. Often, non-Jews cannot fathom that Jews did not need to "name" their religion the way that Christians need the names of their denominations or Muslims need the label "Islam" to define themselves. Indeed, clasically, just being simply a "Jew" implied that that person practiced "the (Torah) ways of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews" or a "Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish (Mitzvah/Halakhic) life". The upshot being that the term "Judaism" is ultimately insignificant in terms of what it means, to the Jews especially. And getting back to this vote, there is nothing wrong with having the word "Jews" in a larger parent category, in fact it's most appropriate, and we could just as easily and 100% justifiably have only Category:Jews as the main parent category. Best wishes, IZAK 06:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as my first thought would be to regard Category:Jews as a subcategory of Category:Judaism (and Category:Muslims of Category:Islam, Category:Pagans of Category:Paganism, etc). David Kernow 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nesher (talk · contribs) just reorganized a pile of these categories, and that's why they seem backwards. That's what he means by "is" as he just did it (out of process). Previously, as they had been organized for over 2 years, they made sense; both Category:Jews and Category:Judaism were subcategories of Category:Jews and Judaism. I'm putting things back in order now! --William Allen Simpson 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you User:William Allen Simpson. Until this debate/vote is resolved, and to avoid the distortions you rightly point out, User:Nesher's changes will thus need to be reverted so that other editors can evaluate the matter as it stood prior to Nesher's tendentious edits. IZAK 04:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Judaism. Category:Jews should be a subcategory of Category:Judaism. --Musicpvm 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a single parent category for all articles relating to Judaism, and I'm not sure if there's a reason why it shouldn't be Category:Judaism. That said, IZAK does bring up some legitimate concerns, and I'd encourage an examination of the current categorization scheme, with an eye to improving the overall organization where necessary. Luna Santin 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Luna: Thanks for your comments. FYI the "overall organization" is very good -- there should be as little tampering as possible where long-established and known categories are concerned. Please note that Category:Jews and Judaism IS the parent category and Category:Jews and Category:Judaism are two of its sub-categories. It is logically and factually IMPOSSIBLE for Category:Judaism to be the main category (since "Judaism" refers to the religion of Judaism only which is something some people fail to grasp.) Indeed that is why there are seprate articles for Jew and Judaism because they CANNOT always be equated or fully connected -- not all Jews want or accept a connection with Judaism! If one looks at the type of sub-categories in Category:Jews and Judaism it is very obvious why Category:Judaism CANNOT supercede it. For example, there is no way that the sub-categories (and sub-sub-categories) like Category:Jewish society can EVER be part of Category:Judaism alone because things like Category:Jewish media; Category:Jewish film and theatre; or Category:Anti-Semitism with sub-sub categories like Category:Nazism and Category:Adolf Hitler OBVIOUSLY have nothing to do with Judaism as a religion but has everything to do with Jews as an ethnicity and a people and hence while it can be connectd to the long-established parent Category:Jews and Judaism it cannot fit into a more specific RELIGIOUS Category:Judaism alone. IZAK 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, thanks. Now that I've read this a bit more closely, I will vote to keep, per IZAK and William Allen Simpson. Luna Santin 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment by nom' - IZAK, you're right yet you're still wrong. Of course, categories like "Jewish Society" and its sub-categories such as Jewish Media, "Jewish film and theatre" and "Anti-Semitism" cannot be part of Category:Judaism DIRECTLY - but of course the simple solution is to make Category:Jews and Judaism or Category:Jews into a sub-category of super-cat Judaism. Then, concepts like Anti-Semitism can be sub-sub categories. This is so absurdly simple I can't even grasp your opposition. Nesher 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nesher: This is NOT a word game! Just by saying something (verbally or in writing) does not make it so (in the real world and in fact)! I cannot understand anything you have just said here so it's impossible for me to comment. Clear thinking will lead to clear categories. IZAK 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Jews are Jews because of present or past allegiance with Judaism. Only revisionists claim that there were Jews before there was Judaism. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm JFW: What "revisionism"? Once upon a time Wikipedia had a combined article for Jews and Judaism but they were split, as you no doubt recall. So why was there a split between the two core articles of Jew and Judaism on Wikipedia? It was for the very good reason that the two are different subjects and need to be handled differently. Even from the Biblical perspective, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came before Judaism and not after it, so your point here is moot. In any case, this is a discussion and vote about CATEGORIES on Wikipedia and how to accomodate divergent views without confusing and mixing up logical and truthful categories, it's not about theological arguments. (See Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization which I have read and always try to apply and follow...has User:Nesher familiarized himself with these guidelines before he lodged his criticisms here?) What about Jews for Jesus or Secular Jewish culture is that also to be part of "Judaism"? One cannot blow a trumpet of "Judaism ubber alles" while ignoring simple realities that there are other related domains that need to be categorized here but they will never fit in a Judaism category alone...unless...the real "trick strategy" was to eventually dump all the non-Judaic categories into some other realm...?) At any rate, you cannot squeeze outlandish topics that are obviously not part of Judaism into a "Judaism" category, ever. There has to be something a little broader, and Category:Jews and Judaism has served that function well for two years now (you never complained...) IZAK 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. I agree with IZAK that there is an important distinction here. I don't think, as JFW suggests, that it is a matter of first or last. Many people see themselves as Jewish but this has little or no bearing on their religion. Despite my feeling of a need for a distinction, I am not sure that the current category names are clear, although they do correspond to the relevant articles as IZAK points out. Maybe what is currently in Judaism should be Jewish religion and the contents of Jews and Judaism should be merged into Judaism. Yet some of the boundaries will remain blurred. jnothman ^talk 11:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi jnothman: What would be the point of moving the furniture around if we aren't going anywhere? Firstly, Judaism = "Jewish religion." Would it occur to anyone to rename Category:Christianity to "Christian religion" or Category:Islam to "Islamic religion" and then shove into the "empty spaces" very artificial subjects that are only tangentially connected (and even opposed to) the very essence of either Christianity or Islam? Of course NOT! So why even think along such lines here? Finally, there is nothing unclear about a parent category called Category:Jews and Judaism that has as its two main sub-categories Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. How much plainer could or should it be? User:Nesher's complaint is not credible because anyone who reads simple English and wishes to get to know how the categories work can do so very easily. Perhaps he is in a rush whereas this system has been working extremely well for two years now. IZAK 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep per IZAK.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as IZAK points out, there are many sub-cats of the over-category Category:Jews and Judaism that are relevant to Jews but have nothing to do with Judaism, and vice-versa. Moreover, there are sub-cats that seem to fit between the lines -- such as Category:Anti-Semitism or Category:Israel -- which do fit in the over-category, but aren't directly related to Judaism or Jews per se Ð’n^talk 11:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- D'n:FYI, subjects relating to Category:Israel are part of another parent super-category called Category:Israel and Zionism which is a very distinct category with some obvious connections and overlap/s at times to categories and subjects in Category:Jews and Judaism. IZAK 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment by nom - D'n: When you say "sub-cats of the over-category Category:Jews and Judaism that are relevant to "Jews" but have nothing to do with "Judaism"" - I assume you refer to catgeories such as Category:Jewish society, Category:Jewish education and Category:Jewish history. This is not a rhetorical question - Why on earth can each of these not be placed into a sub-category of supercategory Judaism (i.e. the categories "Jews" and/or "Jews and Judaism" will become sub-catgeories of "Judaism") -- Let me give you some solely needed examples:
    1. Category:Jainism is the sole super-cat for all things Jain
    2. Category:Christianity is the sole super-cat for all things Christian
    3. Category:Islam is the sole super-cat for all things Muslim - i.e. "Muslims" are a sub-cat
    4. Category:Bahá'í is the sole super-cat for all things Bahai
    5. Category:Buddhism is the sole super-cat for all things Buddhist
  - This is verging on the ridiculous. Can you not see the sense? -- Nesher 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Yes, people who disagree strongly may see each other's views as "verging on the ridiculous", but that doesn't magically make one side right. Christians, Muslims, Bahá'í, and Buddhists are in no senses ethnicities; I'm not so sure about Jainism, but I'm pretty certain that there is no secular Jainist culture comparable to secular Jewish culture. These are simply poor analogies. An analogy that cuts the opposite way would be something like Category:Bulgarian Orthodox Church which is under Category:Bulgaria or Category:Romanian Orthodox Church which is under Category:Religion in Romania. I'm not saying that is a more valid analogy. I'm saying that it is an equally invalid analogy to yours. Category:Judaism does not belong under Category:Jews any more than vice versa. This is exactly why the supercategory is legitimate here. - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Pecher ^Talk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep per IZAK. It might be tempting to reduce everything to Judaism, but even a first-pass read of the articles involved will make it clear that it's all broader and more complex than that. We may want to consider a better taxonomy for this broad subject, but this kind of reductionism won't do it. --Leifern 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep. Analogies with Hindus and Hinduism or Islam and Muslims do not hold - because these are all religious concepts. If we really have to make analogies, I'd say Jews and Judaism are closer in concept to Greeks and Greek orthodoxy - a people with a religion and a culture. While the people may not "exist" without their religion or culture, the people are not a subcategory of their religion (or culture). - Hillel 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why are "Hindus and Hinduism or Islam and Muslims" called "religious concepts" whereas Jews and Judaism aren't? Surely, the latter is most definitively a religous concept - there wouldn't be Jews without Judaism. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you're Jewish (any level of observance) or you're not; one can't call oneself a non-practising Jew and define oneself as completely distinct from the rubric of Judaism - it's an oxymoron. If you invoke one, the other is by definition connected. Nesher
  - Comment - Nesher, you are making an assumption that is disputed, which is that Jews are to Judaism as Hindus are to Hinduism, Christians are to Christianity, etc. There is lots and lots of literature on this issue, and it can be highlighted with Mordechai Kaplan's (also disputed) assertion that "Judaism is the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people," which makes peoplehood supreme to religion; whereas others would have it the other way. It would be meaningless to talk about "secular Christian culture," but meaningful to talk about "secular Jewish culture." I suppose every religion and every nationality is unique in its own way; on this topic, the Jewish enterprise is unique. --Leifern 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Of course they're connected. That doesn't mean we can reduce a people to a subcategory of their religion. Within many cultures, your relationship with the religion of your people is necessarily part of your identity, and within this context not practising it (or practising Buddhism instead) is indeed a significant link/relationship in itself. That doesn't mean that Spaniards are a subcategory of Catholisism, Greeks a subcategory of Greek Othodoxy, or the People of Israel a subcategory of Judaism. – Hillel 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of logic to having a super-category for both religious and secular categories. It does not make sense to lump the articles together. That said, I agree with jnothman that renaming in such a way to make 'Jews and Judaism' into 'Judaism' (consistent with other religions) and what is currently in Judaism be renamed something else that point to the religion of the Jewish people. Nevertheless I also think that Izak raises a good point that there aren't really any naming alternatives that are any clearer. Jon513 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename. I myself am a Jew who does not actively practice Judaism. When my family ceased to be actively religious (sometime in the 19th century for most of my ancestors) that did not change our ethnicity. Yes, I am very skeptical about the small number of non-Jews (neither born nor formally converted) who claim to practice Judaism, but that says nothing about the literally millions of secular Jews who may or may not have a sentimental attachement to Judaism, but certainly do not practice it. The ethnic identity and religion are strongly related—very strongly—but that does not make the ethnic identity a subset of the religion. - Jmabel | Talk 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep per IZAK. Yevgeny Kats 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this discussion won't be solved here anyway. I'm sorry if most people think that 'Judaism' is a religion. I understand Nesher's nom, but unfortunately, wp is a democracy with all the disadvantages of democracy emphasized. FWIW, the Jews cat should be a sub cat of Category:Sons of Israel which should be under Category:Ancient peoples --Shuki 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. IZAK's arguments about confusing secular judaism with religious Judaism are really nothing more than a red herring. All the subcats of "Jews and judaism" could just as easily be subcats of "Judaism", and vice-versa. Creating two functionally identical cats is wasteful and confusing. --Bachrach44 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bachrach: There is no such thing as "secular Judaism"! There are secular Jews, yes, but not "secular Judaism" -- even Humanistic Judaism is a religion albeit minus the Jewish God. And who has ever heard of "religious Judaism"? There is no such thing because Judaism by definition only means the religion itself. Please review the above discussions carefully to see what is actually being said and do not recast the discussion in terms that no-one, but you, is using. I am deeply offended that you regard my hard work as a "red herring" of all things. The roots of the discussion/s we are having here, and the reason there are both Category:Judaism and Category:Jews that are contained in the parent Category:Jews and Judaism, all goes back to OLD discussions on Wikipedia, some three or four years in fact, leading to the split between the Jew and Judaism articles into separate articles. You will need to go back to the early archives of those articles' individual talk pages at Talk:Jew and Talk:Judaism to understand how and WHY those subjects got split into articles of their own and how that in turn, when the system of categories on Wikipedia was introduced, influenced and spawned the creation of two different categories of Category:Jews and Category:Judaism as categories that cannot be the same, and in turn how the parent Category:Jews and Judaism could, and does, legitimately house them both. Thanks for giving this a little deeper thought. IZAK 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Satirical Comment as an IT person - yet another example of hierarchical decomposition being completely inadequate - go multidimensional ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you vote nay or yea? IZAK 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Jews (a cultural and ethnic group) and Judaism (a religion), though related, are not identical. Dauster 01:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep per IZAK. ShalomShlomo 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Books critical of Judaism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 10:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is an entirely redundant category. Besides being completely empty, any serious and non anti-semitic criticism can be found in Category:Biblical criticism. That makes this category a needless duplication. Nesher 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if it can be populated. There do already exist similiar categories: Category:Books critical of Christianity and Category:Books critical of Islam. However, wouldn't there be a lot of overlap between this category and Category:Books critical of Zionism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeRocketGoNow (talk • contribs)

If Judaism is necessary for Zionism, I'd say Category:Books critical of Zionism would be a subcategory of Category:Books critical of Judaism. Meanwhile, I believe there is a distinction between "Books critical of Judaism" and "Biblical criticism", not least as Judaism is not the only religion to refer to a collection of scriptures known as a "Bible". Regards, David Kernow 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- what the heck does "Biblical" criticism have to do with Judaism? --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate per MakeRocketGoNow; if I'm not mistaken, Category:Books critical of Zionism is about a political topic, while Category:Books critical of Judaism should be about a religious one. N'est-ce pas? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pegship; nom is furthermore wrong to equivocate criticism of Judaism with Biblical criticism and vice versa. Postdlf 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept for future population, may be wise to rename it to Category:Criticism of Judaism to increase the scope of the category, allowing for the inclusion of more articles. That said, while many criticisms of the Bible may be relevant to Judaism, it's important to remember the seperation between the Old and New Testaments (among other things), and that not all criticisms will necessarily refer to the Bible. Thanks for the thought, though, I can see where you're coming from. Regards, Luna Santin 10:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anyone know if this was depopulated in advance of the nomination? Osomec 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Honestly, do you really think I'd stoop so low? Nesher
Delete attack category - unlikely anything in here would be encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe the same of the above categories for books critical of Christianity and of Islam? Postdlf 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, since it appears to be empty. No view either way at the moment on whether it could be a legitimate category, since there is no content to illustrate the point either way. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as per Jmabel. --Shuki 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jayg Kuratowski's Ghost 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- we already have Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Jewish Christian topics, which, together, more than adequately cover anything this category could ever hope to, and with a much more reasonable scope. Tom e r ^talk 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similer cats exist, and merely pointing out that there are things critical to X is not an attack nor criticism of X. -M^ask 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AKMask. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Billboard number one categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was revised rename. Conscious 10:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These should be renamed to reflect the new chart names. In the proposed names, I also removed the hyphen in "number-one" so they will be consistent with their parent categories Category:American number one singles and Category:Number one singles. If the hyphen should be removed (I'm not sure if it necessary or not but it seems it should be removed for consistency reasons), these following categories should be renamed as well:

--Musicpvm 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for new chart names, Oppose removal of hyphen - If the chart name is updated then definitely change the category name. As far as the hyphen, I think the categories without the hyphen should have it added. I might be wrong, but I assumed that grammatically a hyphen is correct when "number-one" is used as an adjective, but not needed when used as a noun. -- eo 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for renaming the Hot Dance Club Play chart, oppose removal of hyphen, which is grammatically wrong. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Ok, that makes sense. I will revise my proposal. --Musicpvm 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States district court cases → Category:United States District Court cases

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. If Category:United States Court of Appeals cases is capitalized, then this one should be, too.—Markles 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; "district court" is only capitalized when referring to a specific court rather than United States district courts generally; same as with the U.S. courts of appeals. The COA category is instead miscapitalized. Postdlf 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, I don't care which gets corrected. Nevertheless one is capitalized (COA) and the other is not (dc). It should be consistent.—Markles 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Portal:Foo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per revised proposal (see table). Conscious 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from renaming the Category:Wikipedia:Foo categories, and a nomination below, we should rename these. The suggestion is Category:Fooian Portal for countries and geographic regions, and Category:Foo Portal for others. SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Support sounds reasonable to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename each to Category:X portals / Category:Portals for X / etc as each carries more than one portal. David Kernow 13:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. Several of these contain subpages for a specific portal, rather than having several portals. For that reason, rename either to Category:X/Xian Portal or Category:X/Xian Portals on a case by case basis. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about:

Rename from	to
Category:Portal:Africa	Category:African portals
Category:Portal:Americas	Category:Americas portals, but perhaps Category:Portals to the Americas or the like to avoid awkward double plural.
Category:Portal:Asia	Category:Asian portals
Category:Portal:Canada	Category:Canadian portals
Category:Portal:Cannabis	delete? (Portal:Cannabis the only member)
Category:Portal:Cars	Category:Cars Portal
Category:Portal:Cars anniversaries	Category:Cars Portal anniversary pages
Category:Portal:Cars quotes	Category:Cars Portal quote pages
Category:Portal:Cars selected articles	Category:Cars Portal selected articles
Category:Portal:Cars selected pictures	Category:Cars Portal selected pictures
Category:Portal:Christianity	Category:Christianity portals
Category:Portal:Computer and video games	Category:Computer and video game portals
Category:Portal:Dragonlance	Category:Dragonlance Portal pages
Category:Portal:Europe	Category:European portals
Category:Portal:Food	Category:Food portals
Category:Portal:Fromer Cars selected articles	Category:Cars Portal former selected articles
Category:Portal:Geography	Category:Geography portals
Category:Portal:India	Category:India Portal (and merge Category:India portal)
Category:Portal:India/Selected article removal candidates (NB currently empty)	Category:India Portal selected article candidates for removal
Category:Portal:Latin America	Category:Latin American portals
Category:Medicine portal	Category:Medicine Portal
Category:Portal:Middle-earth subpages	Category:Middle-earth Portal (and add Portal:Middle-earth)
Category:Portal:North America	Category:North American portals
Category:Portal:Oceania	Category:Oceanian portals
Category:Portal:Religion	Category:Religion portals
Category:Portal:Southeast Asia	Category:Southeast Asian portals
Category:Portal:Sports	Category:Sports portals
Category:Portal:Television	Category:Television portals
Category:Portal:Tropical cyclones	Category:Tropical cyclones Portal
Category:Portal:United States	Category:United States portals

Apologies in advance if I've missed any containing pages rather than portals. Regards, David Kernow 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts, I missed that most of them contain portals - well caught, both of you. I'd disagree on the new renames though, because I see no reason to split "articles related to the Foo Portal" from "subportals of the Foo Portal". For example, Category:Portal:Food contains both Category:Food portal selected articles and the subportals of Food (Cooking and Beer). SeventyThree^(Talk) 06:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking the Portal:Food example, Portal:Cooking and Portal:Beer appear to be related but standalone portals rather than subportals, hence my "...portals" suggestions. However, I may well be missing something. Regards, David 13:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added Category:Medicine portal to list... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the category for pages relating to the New Zealand Portal are simply in Category:New Zealand Portal, which is in line with the renaming proposal. I agree with all the above rename proposals (i.e., the ones in the table), but wonder whether it would be worthwhile adding Portal: Middle-earth to the category and simply renaming to Category:Middle-earth Portal. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I've adjusted the nomination above. Since that's more of a rescope than the others, I've whacked a {{Cfd-article}} on Portal talk:Middle-earth to let them know (and object if they want). I still prefer my general format, but it's not a big issue as long as the double-namespace thing goes. SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Six of one half-dozen of the other to me. Sounds fine for the Middle-earth portal specifically and these categories in general. --CBD 10:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the medicine portal.--Steven Fruitsmaak 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dark Lords

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV, misnamed (should be prefixed with Fictional if allowed to exist), fancruft. CovenantD 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept. Dark Lord handles this pretty well. Perhaps just add this as a "See also" link to the articles contained in this category? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indian Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of India

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn/no consensus. Conscious 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are synonymous and should be merged. I think merging into Naval ships of India is more consistent with other ship categories, but I don't care much about which gets merged where as long as a merge occurs. TomTheHand 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would suggest merge to Indian Naval ships, seems to be the more natural phrase of the two. --Wisd e n17 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Ships of the Indian Navy. David Kernow 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Almost every Naval ships of foo category has a Fooian Navy ships subcategory. - EurekaLott 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying, EurekaLott. I was probably mistaken in nominating this for merge. I don't agree with every country having a "Naval ships of (country)" cat and those cats having a "(country's navy) ships" subcat, but it is consistent. This one was just an unusually big mess. The cats need cleanup, not merging. TomTheHand 18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe having 2 pages with the same topic is a waste of space and also contributes to splitting away of information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.117.175.130 (talk • contribs) .

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. As has been the case in the past, there is no clear consensus on what to do with these categories at this time. Late in the disucussion, some alternatives began to get discussed that may warrant further discussion, and Category talk:Wikipedians by politics appears to be an approriate venue. This master category affects a ton of users, and links to any straw polls, or other options brought up in the future discussion should be properly linked to from village pump and/or other community related areas. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_29#Category:Advocates_of_traditional_British_counties_to_Category:Wikipedians_who_advocate_traditional_British_counties.

* Note To random admin wandering by. We're stil ltrying to reach consensus, do not close this CFD yet. -- Drini 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC), Looks like we are ready to close, per nominator (see bottom of page) -- Samuel Wantman 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -That's your opinion. I think there is still enough debate about this. Larix 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value, possible votestacking use Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - when I get access to AWB, I will mark all of the categories individually.

Note: This is not a discussions about userboxes. No userboxes will deleted whatever the outcome of this. This is about the categories -- Drini 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category was kept twice as a result of two earlier Cfd debates. January 4 2006 and December 18 2005 --Facto 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) NOTE On december, these categories were closed as KEEP while on January they were closed as No consensus. It's been over 6 months since then, it's valid to CFD again to gauge consensus. -- Drini 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support These contribute to factionalization, assuming bad faith (when seen by an oppponent) and vote-stacking. Any need for expertise on a partisan view can be better addressed by listing the request on the talk page of the relevant party, where it will be seen by those who care about the partisan view, regardless of whether they hold it. GRBerry 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to elaborate. The first sentence puts the problems in decreasing order of importance, per my eyes. Factionalization is worst, making people assume bad faith is next, and vote-stacking is least important. Having a party/faction based category factionalizes us in a way that declaring a bias/POV on our user pages does not. Go take a look at User:GRBerry mine. I have a bias declaration section, using things that are modified from userboxes (not inclusions or even plan subst's of them). What I consider my relevant biases are very visible to anyone that cares to look - but not visible in a category and not reachable by "what links here". So my bias is exposed without being in a reachable faction. As I said initially, any need for expertise (the only encyclopedic value of the categories) can just as readily be filled by asking on the talk page of the article about the relevant party. It can also be obtained, as others have already suggested below, by asking on a relevant Portal Talk page or a relevant Project Talk page.

I understand, and somewhat agree with GTBacchus' belief that this might be to soon for this proposal. But if you look at the full CFD page for 2006 June 19, you'll see two discussions about specific parties. A lot of the opposition to the first listed was of the "all or none would be ok, but not one-by-one" form. And when the first comment to the second listed (mine) was identical, I think the nominator decided to take us at our word and believe that there was signficant support for getting rid of all. GRBerry 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't a deletion notice appear at top of page Category:Wikipedians by politics that reads "This category is being considered for deletion..." before this vote proceeds? JungleCat 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All the subcategories should be tagged, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let the voting begin...... JungleCat 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... ~~voting~~ → discussion -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (knocking furiously on wood)[reply]
Discussion? I can't wait to discuss the next Presidential Election. ;-) JungleCat 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GTBacchus is pointing that here on wikipedia, decisisons are not taken because of majority (that is, by vote counting) but by weighing is arguments and building consensus (that is 100 "voters " with weak or no arguments in favor vs 1 sound argument against makes the outcome to be in favor of the 1 sound argument against). Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ (changing suggestion - see waaaay below for explanation with timestamp: 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)) - This had to happen eventually, and although I think this is premature, I'll go ahead and support it. User categories according to political beliefs are a bad way for Wikipedians to network, especially when there are so much better ways to do it. We all have watchlists, there are WikiProjects and Portals, all of which are set up to enable us to find each other and communicate according to our editing interests. Another layer of organization, totally detatched from the article space, according to beliefs that may or may not have anything to do with our Wikipedia editing, is a recipe for abuse, and suggests that Wikipedia is a place of partisan organization and partisan activity. Simply setting an example of not acting in a partisan manner is not sufficient when we cheerfully provide infrastructure for partisan organization. We should stop sending mixed signals, and focus on writing an encyclopedia. We can celebrate our diversity, network with ohther Wikipedians, and build a stronger community that is tightly bound to the project, by networking by means of articles, WikiProjects, and Portals. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRBerry and GTBacchus. Non-encyclopedic, promotes categorization irrelevant to editing, and potential vote-stacking/edit-warring tool. Fireplace 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not really good for anything except vote-stacking, as far as I can see, with respect to building an encyclopedia. So, kill. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize it survived CFD as recently as around five months ago. I would preferably wait at least a year or so before trying to renominate; five months is long enough that I'm not going to oppose on the basis of gaming the system, but I can't support a renomination so soon either. So neutral. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, categories should not be used to classify users, only articles. Rangeley 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we will have a *lot* more categories to delete than are described here. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support possible categories should be used for articles mostly, and user categories should not pose such risk of compromise NPOV by being used as ways to coordinate block efforts (as it Conservative Wikipedians was in the past days (WP:AN/I). So yes, all political user categories shouldn't be welcomed at wikipedia. -- Drini 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --GTBacchus has a good point. JungleCat 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After some further thought, I Oppose. Please see this section of discussion dealing with userboxes: Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#Why_should_we_tolerate_polemical_userboxes? And YES, political userboxes ARE affected by this. JungleCat 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Divisive, inflammatory, unnecessary. --ajn (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; contributes nothing to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Let's spend less time categorising users and more time improving articles. Warrens 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will probably end up voting support, however why do we stop at political affiliations, can't the same be said for religious classifications etc? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UE, and only lead to further conflict. --Wisd e n17 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If Category:Wikipedians by religion ever comes up for a vote, someone please notify me. While I think they can be used for good, I am afraid it will create bias. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being that the userbox war appears to be settling down with a compromise I don't mind seeing this go. It was one thing when the politics were broad, general categories (or philosophies), but looking at the subs now things have gotten way to specific and factional. Sadly the only way to handle it is to drop the whole branch. The religion branch should probably go as well as religion and politics tend to go hand in hand. I do think this should have waited a few more weeks as the German compromise is still growing roots and adding more conflict isn't going to help bring the extremists on board. In the end, having Wikipedian by skill or interest is enough for what the community is here for. --StuffOfInterest 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However this is only marginally related to userboxes, which aren't under discussion here. This is about the categories themselves (no matter if they are populated via userbox or not) -- Drini 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is distinctly related in terms of people's ability and choices for identifying themselves. --StuffOfInterest 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my ~~vote~~ view to Keep. On further reflection, and after reading many of the other comments, I'd rather have people's POV clearly visible. If categories are banned then users will find other ways outside of Wikipedia to coordinate activities. At least if it happens on Wikipedia we have a better chance of identifying and dealing with it. Once it moves off site it will become more difficult to monitor and control. --StuffOfInterest 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that this is not a vote so you cannot "change your vote". You can change your mind however, that's fine and write a new argument, which I see you did -- Drini 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if we just got better at communicating the idea that coordinating by POV is actually a bad way to write an encyclopedia, and there were significant peer pressure to not think that way? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Human nature is too strong. There will always be goups who choose to coordinate their POV. Having categories such as these at least act as a honeypot so we can keep track of those using the technique. If nothing else, the categories can have a warning stating exactly what the categories should not be used for. If someone still goes ahead and spams based on it then there is easy grounds to block on. Driving the communications off site will make it much harder to track and quantify which makes justifying the blocks that much more difficult. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have a lot of faith in the ability of subcultures (Wikipedians) to develop their own standards and enforce them, but it requires people getting on board and helping to build momentum. What I think would be ideal would be, not to drive communication offsite, but to draw it into a more intimate connection with article space. Why communicate via an external categorization like user categories, when you could join a relevant WikiProject instead? Then people can communicate and express themselves and network to their heart's content, and they'd be doing it in a way that is quite blatantly encyclopedic, because the networking would take place over the editing of articles. Once a bunch of people are acting that way, newcomers will see that it's the way things are done here, and human nature won't present nearly the problem you imagine. Humans will adapt to the structures that are provided to them - if we provide more encyclopedic ways to network, why not trust people to grow into that, and encourage them into those structures by beginning to remove some of these old, less encyclopedia-oriented structures. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good in principal. Still, is this something which should be done with the "softly, softly" approach or with a big stick? I see the big stick as deleting an entire tree (or trees) of categories. Softly would be trying to educate people that there is a better way to organize and then as the categories depopulate to remove them. As it stands now mass action is more likely to create massive strife within the community. --StuffOfInterest 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sigh... yeah. That's why I began my support for deletion above with "I think this is premature", but once they're nominated, I have to give my very best arguments, whether or not enough Wikipedians are ready for it to happen. This is also why I started a political-themed WikiProject last night, and if it seems to be working out well (which it does, so far), I'll probably help start more, and try to encourage networking that way. I'm an avowed opponent of the "big stick" approach, but I won't argue for keeping something that should go if there's a chance we can jettison it now. At some point, progress is progress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this doesn't do the project any good. I don't have any opposition to "Wikipedians interested in x" search systems, but this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a use of Category space that does more harm than good. Jkelly 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-gadfium 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Its fair for all categories to go.Gsingh 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — however, the userboxes must be kept. Deleting userboxes without subst'ing is essentially vandalism. (If the userboxes weren't userified, it would be much easier to do, just by removing the category from the userbox.) I agree that the categories are of very little benefit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES! This is not about the userboxes, the useroxes are fine, just a mean for people to state their beliefs. The categories however are an organizational tool and user categories by beliefs pose huge risks. For instance, today an user was spamming for support using some christianity user-category. -- Drini 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Divisive. Chicheley 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose this deletion, on the grounds that such categories are useful for community building and having fun, which are important in encouraging participation in the project. If we delete categories like this, we'd have to delete BJAODN too. Deco 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that doesn't follow. We can delete these categories, and keep BJAODN. None of the arguments I see above, including the ones I made, apply to BJAODN. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they don't - I just don't find them very compelling personally. I don't believe these cats elevate conflict in any manner. Deco 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I've seen it happen, when they're used as mailing lists for XfD discussion spam. "Hi, I see you identify as a Big-endian Wikipedian, so I'm asking you to come to CFD and vote to save Category:Little-endian baby-eaters. Kthx!" Does that seem to you like how the process is supposed to work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per Deco -- also, improperly formatted nomination, late tagging of subcategories, and apparent other process flaws including vote trolling --William Allen Simpson 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote trolling? Warrens 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per GTBacchus and the timestamps above, the tagging was done within 25 minutes of the nomination. With over 100 sub-categories to tag (some have subcategories themselves), 25 minutes doesn't strike me as unreasonable. As to how I could respons so fast, I had tje June 19 page on watch due to prior participation in the nominations of two of the subcategories of this. I endorse the request for you to explain the vote trolling comment.GRBerry 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tagged the main category within 25 minutes, but the others only just now got done by AWB (thanks Hipocrite). -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe these categories help Wikipedia by notifying Wikipedians of their peers' political views. That is beneficial because it tells us something about users' bias, and that's not to say it's divisive or a bad thing. I see liberal Wikipedians all the time (I'm more or less conservative) and I don't get offended; I'm sure it's likewise as well. Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 06:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potentially useful for WikiProjects, no evidence of "wrongdoing". Nor are they "divisive", any more than userboxes saying you eat at McDonald's or drink Pepsi-cola are divisive. Reflects user biases rather than "creates" them, and helps others to know where users are coming from. Sarge Baldy 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per above. We've had this discussion before, and an overwhelming majority voted to KEEP them. Larix 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have to admit this CFD has a seductive charm to it. We just get rid of the categories and by doing so help put an end to political bickering. But there are so many reasons why I oppose this:
1. Where do you draw the line? Which other categories of users might have an agenda and could use their category to disrupt Wikipedia? Well obviously Category:Wikipedians by philosophy would have to go, because the communists would find refuge in Category:Marxist Wikipedians, and the Republicans would all reorganize in Category:Capitalist Wikipedians. Next we'd have to remove Category:Wikipedians by sexuality, because the Category:LGBT Wikipedians could use the category to push the "gay agenda". Who knows what those Category:Kurdish Wikipedians might decide to do, so lets get rid of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, and while we are at it, we wouldn't want any nationalist associations hijacking the articles like Iraq, or Israel so let's delete all of Category:Wikipedians by ___location. Likewise, we'd have to get rid of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians by organization, because these could be pushing their religious beliefs or organizational objectives. The Category:Unitarian Universalist Wikipedians may be just a front for the liberals, and the conservatives, may all decide to create Category:Baptist Wikipedians and use it to front their agenda. Eventually, we'll just be left with Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube, and decide that it isn't nice to brag and delete them too. Seriously, I don't think that it is possible to draw a line and say these user categories can be used for POV pushing and others cannot.
2. Removing these categories makes Wikipedia less interesting. There is a social value to having Wikipedia user categories. People use Wikipedia as a social outlet. Associating with editors of similar beliefs makes people feel like they belong here.
3. These categories demonstrate that Wikipedia is a big tent. I often here people rant something like "Wikipedia is run by a group of homosexual marxists..." or some other collection of ideologies. Having these categories lets newbies know that they are welcomed no matter what their beliefs are. They will see that there are others like them here already.
4. Removing these categories will not solve the problem. If people want to organize to disrupt a discussion they will find some other means to do it. They will create noticeboards to create a list of likeminded people. If the noticeboards are banned, they will create a list of users on their own talk pages. If these lists are removed, they will keep an e-mail list in their e-mail program. Having this in the open where it can be watched is better than having it hidden.
5. Freedom of association is a good thing. Nobody likes being told who they can communicate with and associate with. This is a basic democratic value. Freedom of association is not the same as freedom to conspire to disrupt. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy. But does that mean we want to turn it into a totalitarian state?
6. People have a need to express themselves. We give people userpages for this reason. It is hard to maintain a constant NPOV outlook on the world. We say that user pages are the place where people can express themselves and the categorization of Wikipedians is an extension of this. If we tell people not to categorize themselves by their beliefs, next thing we will do is tell them not to express their beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia. After all, if you say that you are a Democrat or Republican on your user page, someone can take note of it and contact you when a controversy comes up.
7. These categories are useful. A liberal editor might want a conservative editor to take a look at something for a POV check. I listed myself as an LGBT Wikipedian because I wanted others to know that I may have a bias, and expect to be called on it. I felt that listing myself that way was in a sense a pledge to try and edit in NPOV way, in large part because I was not trying to hide who I was and what my bias may be. When I see people editing a controversial article in an NPOV way and they have stated their personal opinions very clearly on their user pages it adds to my respect and appreciation for them.
8. Deleting these categories does not assume good faith. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who have categorized themselves in these categories. Many may have done so with only the most noble intentions.
9. Draconian measures like this are more disruptive than the problems they are trying to solve. I could have spent the time spent here writing articles about bridges. Deleting these categories is likely to be seen as an over-reaction to a problem which may lead to dissent and disillusionment. Here's an example of how "vote-stacking" can be handled in a much nicer and calmer way. Problems need to be solved with discussion and creative solutions. Draconian measures alienate others, scare off newbies, and escalate confrontation.
10. We should regulate behavior, not speech and association. Let us be clear about how consensus works, it works by building consensus through dialogue. By responding to offenses of "vote-stacking", by removing categories, we tacitly give our approval to the idea of making decisions by voting and encourage people to think that it is reasonable to vote on issues of fact. We shouldn't give the appearance that we are protecting the sanctity of the voting process. There is no vote-stacking because there is NO VOTE, there is just discussion. We should be encouraging admins to make decisions that are only swayed by arguments and not numbers. We should work on coming up with creative solutions to our current scaling problems. There are serious problems to be dealt with. But this CFD is not the solution and may be very harmful to Wikipedia. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. noone has said other categories can' be used for POV pushing. The point is that this ones ARE BEING USED to compromise NPOV in several ways, and so this is ABOUT POLITICAL CATEGORIES other kind of categories may be deal with later. -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Except that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia If you want a social networking site, go MySpace. The fact that people use wikipedia as a social outlet doens't mean it's a make-friends-site. Priorities first. -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  In support of Drini's point here, please see meatball:DefendAgainstPassion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Users can just write so about on their pages and you can point to them. This point is moot since people will rant anyway for any reason. We don not need to disprove what is not true. -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Be it so. Let's not facilitate the wrong behaviour by rationalizing it's inevitable -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wikipedia is not a state so it cannot become a totalitarian state. Use better arguments, you can communicate with other peopl, noone is forbidding so, this is just about categorizing people, not forbidding communication -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. There are plenty of expressing outlets there. We didn't give userpages for that reason. We gave userpages so people could coordinate their wikiwork not for socializing or expressing themselves. People doing that doesn't change the fact it's a misuse. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
7. And These categories are hurtful as welll And the FACT is that they're not being the way you propose but the other ways, with liberal/conservatives/whatever contacting only their political friends in order to support their views and shut off the others. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. It does after examples of misuses. People may have categorized with good intentions, uncategorization isn't going to hurt them. This is just a point to divert the attention on what is on focus. There's nothing about good faith being dealt here. (In fact you're assuming bad faith by assuming this was done for some censorship prupose instead of helping the encyclopedia) -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. A draconian measure is not the same as a non trivial measure. There is no confrontation, you're the only one making it look that way this was a proposal, and people are giving their comments. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. We are not regulating speech, noone is forbidding you to write you're a conservative on your page Yyou are being misleading. There's no issue abotu speech. This is just about disbanding categories with a high potential of rish that have in fact being already used in ways they shouldn't be. People can express themselves, noone is forbidding speech. And as you rightfully point consensus doesn't mean majority since these are votes. So I HOPE the admin closing this CFD wil l consider the ARGUMENTS instead just votecounting. Here we agree. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SamuelWantman, that was a very thorough explanation. Point by point, now:
1. Where will it end - you suggest that we may end up losing almost all non-encylcopedic user categories. I think that would be a good thing. Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedians were to network according to their encyclopedic activities, rather than according to something independent of the encyclopedia? (Intratextual comment: That would be "great" if the encyclopedia weren't about the outside (nonWikipedia) world. These user categories are one of many ways by which editors acting in good faith may contact other editors who have voiced interest in the topic. While bad faith uses are possible (and have occurred), I don't see how the project benefits by moving the scheming/votestacking off-site to a stealthier ___location. Isn't it good for the project to be able to see when folks are gaming the system, etc.? Dick Clark 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
2. This argument seems to be based on the misconception that Wikipedians can't associate with like-minded Wikipedians without user categories. You have not addressed that ample other, better means available for association, which are not opposed, but encouraged. Clearly this is not about "freedom of association".
3. This argument is reasonable, but the fact that Wikipedia is built by all kinds should be apparent from working on articles.
4. This is based on a misundersanding of what "the problem" is. This is about a deeper cultural issue than "vote-stacking".
5. Nobody is suggesting limits on who people can communicate with. You have not addressed the ample, better means available for association, which are not opposed, but encouraged.
6. This arguemnt suggests that unencyclopedic user categories are necessary for self-expression, and ignores the ample, and better means for self-expression available here.
7. A better way to find an editor knowledgable about a certain topic is via articles, projects and portals. You have not addressed this clearly encyclopedic means of networking; in fact some of your arguments rely for their strength on the assumption that encyclopedic means of networking don't exist.
8. This deletion proposal has nothing to do with anyone's good faith. If the categories are a bad idea, people could have joined them for the best of reasons, and they still have to go.
9. This arguments seems to assume that "vote-stacking" is the problem this deletion is trying to solve. It isn't; it's one small facet of the problem.
10. Again, this is not about vote-stacking, and you seem to be ignoring the arguments that have been presented (not in this thread yet) about how so-called "vote-stacking" is actually discussion disruption, and is disruptive regardless of the fact that we don't do votes.
In summary, I'm not buying it. I suspect your intentions are as good as can be, but you seem to be largely misunderstanding the arguments for deletion, as you're responding to what I consider to be straw-men. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per SamuelWantman's points (except 10, the implications of such a change in policy would be tremendous, raise it up on the Village Pump or soemthing, not at CfD.). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It is not true that there is no voting, that is merely idealistic rhetoric. Numbers are inevitably a crucial part of the discussion process. Making a blanket assumption of good faith in in the face of such widespread temptation to act in bad faith is also unrealistic: such a policy is only viable if reasonable steps are taken to control abuse. Osomec 13:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per GTBacchus - TexasAndroid 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRBerry and GTBacchus. CovenantD 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Samuel Wantman - couldn't have put it better myself. --gbambino 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep these categories like all other categories of Wikipedian's are helpful to the community, they emphesize Wikipedia's deiversity and pluralism and thus help everyone find his/her own place. In addition, as commented above it can allow to help make the articles NPOV by making people aware of each others biases instead of bluntly ignoring their existance. In other words these categories help this community deal with its diversity intead of trying to eliminate it, which is both impossible, since people naturaly have a POV and are not machines, and unworthy since diversity can be helpful. Also, I think categories make Wikipedia more fun and help attract new members who contribute a lot and thus have also an indirect positive influence. If there is a SPECIFIC category used for vandelism or for imposing a certain POV then maybe such a specific category should be deleted instead of just deleting all of these categories altogether, although most of them are harmless. Such a draconian measure may also make many members who worked on these lists or joined them feel unwelcome and such a measure will seem more like an aggresive compulsion rather than a cosensus based decision.
I also strongly advise to read Samuel Wantman's 10 points listed above which better explain why deleting these categories is outrageous. In addition I have a question for those people thinking that categories "devide" the community and show members' POV and should therefore be deleted, doesn't this very voting/discussion "devide" the community in the exact same way that categories do? Should it then also be deleted?Tal :) 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has advocated spamming user-talk pages to garner outside support for his position, in addition to posting a not-neutral notice to a wikiproject (a wikiproject I founded, none the less.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I did not "spam" any user talk page but my own. Secondly there is nothing wrong with discussing stuff with other people (isn't that what talk pages are for?) and trying to "garner" "outside support" as I see it is trying to tell other people of what's going on so this voting will reflect Wikipedia's community's opinion and won't consist only of people who happened to notice it on the log... Thirdly, I did leave a message on the Wikiproject wikipedians against censorship, according to the project's own policy: "This notice board is intended to inform project members of current Wikipedia events related to censorship. Please list articles in need of attention...votes for deletion..." and I did add my own POV arguments so people will understand what I'm talking about and why I think it is important and worth mentioning on the noticeboard (specifically created, if i'm not mistaken, for these kinds of messages), BUT I also encouraged them to read this discussion and form their OWN opinion. Lastly, I believe that by your comment, intended to delegitimise my opinion, you have answerd my above question... Tal :) 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tal, regarding your "I see it is trying to tell other people of what's going on so this voting will reflect Wikipedia's community's opinion", I have a reply. Since these discussions aren't votes, but they look like votes, it's actually damaging to act as if they are, and act as if trying to get a "representative sample" is a good idea. In a vote, that would make sense, and if Wikipedia were a democracy, we might have mechanisms in place to try to guarantee representative samples. Since it isn't, we don't pretend that rallying up a larger sample would necessarily have a positive effect on a discussion. To an extent, bringing in more opinions helps, but once the major opinions are represented, it's down to the arguments, not the numbers. It's a fact that discussions scale poorly (the density of one-to-one interactions goes down as the square of the group size), and at some point, more cooks really do ruin the cake. Worst of all, running around doing things to ensure that the "vote" is fair strongly reinforces the idea that decisions are made by votes here, and that's a destructive idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wantman. BoojiBoy 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wantman and others. Especially agreed that being open about potential bias helps achieve NPOV. Kestenbaum 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I fully support being open about potential bias. That's not what this deletion proposal is about though; it's a red herring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant invitations to abuse. The idea that being open about bias helps to achieve NPOV is comical. It doesn't work in any other media and it won't work here. CalJW 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:CalJW is wrong -- being open about bias is virtually the only way to achieve NPOV. However, the categories are primarily used for spamming, even though they may have appropriate uses. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your opinion then you must have a fundamentally different concept of NPOV to me. --Cherry blossom tree 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Used for vote-stacking. --Carnildo 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strongly divisive, useless in creating an encyclopedia, devastatingly effective as a means of subverting consensus. They must die. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Folks, take Tony's word for this one...he's Wikipedia's expert at subverting consensus. Jay Maynard 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  What? No personal attacks, please. Can we all act kind of adult here, maybe? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They encourage divisions and only hinder writing an encyclopaedia.--Cherry blossom tree 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Openness about your POV (in user space) is crucial to the collaborative process, and can often help editors understand whether a difficult contributor is acting in bad faith or is just being unintentionally obtuse. Dick Clark 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's scary, if you're willing to conclude bad faith based on what you see written in a userbox. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith carefully, and try not to think of difficult contributors as "bad faith" contributors. That said, I agree that openness about one's potential biases is a good thing, and yet I want to see these categories deleted. I guess disclosure of bias isn't the issue at stake after all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I never even hinted at a userbox or any combination of userboxen being sufficient evidence for such a belief. In fact, I specifically made the point that not all "difficult contributors" are acting in badfaith. That was indeed crucial to my assertion. Also, your assertion that this category deletion and bias disclosure are complimentary is what I am disputing. I know that you claim that to be so—that's why I'm saying that you are wrong. Let me get this straight: You claim that 1)GTBacchus thinks that bias disclosure is a "good thing"; 2) GTBacchus thinks that the categories should be deleted; 3)Therefore, bias disclosure and this cat deletion are compatible. I'm sorry, but that argument form seems pretty specious to me. Dick Clark 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. When you said "Openness about your POV (in user space)... can often help editors understand whether a difficult contributor is acting in bad faith or is just being unintentionally obtuse." So, it sounds like you're saying that there's something someone can say in their userspace that would enable us to conclude that they're a bad-faith editor. I see nothing to be gained from thinking that way, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If so, I'm sorry about that; it wasn't intentional.

As for the disclosure of bias and category deletion being compatible or not, I guess they wouldn't be if user categories were the only way, or even the best way, to disclose bias, but they're not. I'm strongly in favor of disclosure of bias in appropriate ways, and strongly opposed to doing it in inappropriate ways. I hope that clarifies my point; I apologize for any confusion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete, kill, destroy all these categories which are bound to encourage POV massing and organised campaigns. David | Talk 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use for them, other than being divisive. Also could very easily be used as a vote stacking tool. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm in finding out who has the same political ideaology as you.--GorillazFan Adam 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody has addressed my first point. Where do we draw the line? If these categories are removed, we in all fairness must remove categories of Wikipedians related to ___location and religion, because those have also been used for "vote-stacking", and with the abolution of these categories likely to be used even more. I find this to be a proposal without a workable future. -- Samuel Wantman 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook Questionable cause fallacy Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the religions ones should also go away, but instead of wondering what about the others I believe the practical approach is better. Deal first with this kind. Then deal with the other and so on, given that trying to delete both kind of categories is a change so large that would make the decission taking much more complicated than handling them separatedly. -- Drini 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I will give the answer Samuel Wantman was asking here: You will not draw the line until every category that alienates an opinion is eliminated. That’s it. Userboxes are targets here too, and I’ll tell you why. You see, Samuel Wantman was right when he pointed out that there will be other ways to form alliances, identify who does what, etc. For example, I could create a cute little userbox (let’s call it “Tacobell eaters who are conservative”) and I share it with my good WIKI friends who put it on their userpage. That userbox will have a link to a sub-page under my user page. All I have to do is go to that sub-page and hit What links here?. And – Whala! I have a my own user "category". There is more than one way to “skin a cat” (no pun intended).Samuel Wantman has some other good points, one of which was how to handle “vote stacking” in a friendly way: An example. One more point: ‘’Wikipedia is not a democracy’’ - OK, then some of you might want to look at your userpage. Does it conform to Wiki standards? Do you put things not related to work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia? Do you have a bias spelled out of who you are? Remember, this is not a democracy. POV’s are not allowed. GTBacchus has good points. That is why initialy supported this idea. Now, after thinking about the future effect this will have, I am now pulling a John Kerry and opposing this. JungleCat 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this part: "Remember, this is not a democracy. POV’s are not allowed." Who's saying that POVs are not allowed? Do you realize that POV stands for "point of view", and that everybody's got one? How could they not be allowed? Do you really think that's the argument at stake here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this section will shed light on what I am addressing: Wikipedia talk:Userboxes# Why should we tolerate polemical userboxes? (see my entry at bottom of page) JungleCat 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - If used properly, they do no harm. Why punish everyone for the mistakes of a few? - pm_shef 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're being improperly used. But the main point is that nobody is being punished, nro censored, etc. You can write about your POVs on your page if you feel the need. Having a techcnical tool to facilitat networking with high risk for abuse (which has been done in the past) is not good. But this is not punishment to nay user. Please, keep the facts straight. -- Drini 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriately used by who? I can't recall every having got a message saying "help me stack the vote going on over here". Honestly I can't see that happens much at all. If it does, the 2 users doing it should be implored to stop, or otherwise made to stop. Sarge Baldy 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, it's happened three times in the last week, twice with Category:Conservative Wikipedians, and according to Drini, once with some Christian category. I've seen way too many messages that say things like "Hi, I see you identify yourself as a Big-endian Wikipedian; please come to CfD and vote to save Category:Little-endian baby-eaters. Kthkx!" You only have to see that a few times before becoming convinced it's a problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion- correct me if I'm mistaken, but I get the feeling from reading the arguments for deletion that the main issue here is vote stacking (essentialy internal spamming). Unlike what people argued above, I believe that most vote stacking comes not from outright meaness and a conscious violation of Wikipedia's policies but rather out of ignorance of policies and of the concept of internal spamming, and confusion about the correct use of political categories, resulting from lack of clear guidelines. Thus, I suggest the following motion, which I believe will adress the problem of dealing with vote stacking in a much more effective and less offensive way:

Firstly, a warning will be posted on all user categories and subcategories (not only political ones) explaining briefly what internal spamming is, that it violets WP:SPAM and that it is a blockable offence. I believe this will significantly reduce the ignorance-based vote stacking and will make vote stacking much rarer.
Secondly, an on going discussion should start to create clear guidelines and objectives of user categories defining what's right and what's wrong.
Violators of such guidelines, or of existing Wikipedia policy, especially vote stackers, will be blocked.
A few months after this motion is put into pracitce its results will be assesed and IF it turns out vote stacking was not reduced significantly then a new proposal for deletion will take place. Only this time it will be different from now since members (like me) might get the feeling that there is indeed no other "softer" solution possible and that this proposal really deals with a serious problem and is not just a way to try and do away with individuality and pluralism on Wikipeida.

The benefits of this solution are:

It will make the objective of deletion (if it will be decided to repropose it in a few months) much clearer and thus the deletion,if put in practice, will be better accepted and people will not be encouraged to form outside potential vote stacking places, a problem mentioned by many people here, which will make vote stacking harder to track and monitor and may evetually increase the problem instead of reducing it.
It may allow the benefits of user categories, mentioned by many users int this dicussion, and reduce their disadvatages.
Members "voting" against deletion (like me) may change their view after the results of this solution be assesd, or if my solution will be succesful in reducing vote stacking significantly, members currently spporting the deletion may change their views. Thus this motion will help achieve consensus and make this issue less devisive.
The current proposal, without the neccessary assesment suggested, will be considered by many as a collective punishment and an unneccessary draconian measure, and it will ultimately create bad faith between members in the community, many of whom worked hard on making these lists without intending harm, and will probably feel oppressed by their outright and aggresive deletion.

So, this is my proposal, and I suggest that it will be put in practice and that in the meantime we keep all user categories, block all spammers according to Wikipeida's policies and reasses the situation in a few months, after analyzing this solution's outcomes Tal :) 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal, I would dispute your starting assumption, that the main problem is vote-stacking. It isn't. The main problem is the Wikipedia has gotten into the habit of categorizing ourseves in a way that's separate from the articles we work on. That's a bad habit and we're trying to break it. The solution is for people to network via articles, projects, and portals, which will allow for just as much community as user categories, and in a way that is fundamenatally related and not at odds with our basic goal of writing an encyclopedia. Your proposal seems to be based on the idea that user categorization by belief is basically an ok thing, with only the problem of vote-stacking. The problem is the user categorization by belief is basically misguided. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category and all its subcats. I don't think it's inherently a bad thing (and it may even be helpful) to disclose one's own beliefs and/or biases on a user page, but this doesn't require the use of categories. The existence of a single, centralized categorization system of users based on these beliefs does facilitate harmful vote-stacking and factionalization. We ought to err on the side of preventing harm by ridding the project of these centralized belief-based categories. — Jeff | (talk) | 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GTBacchus. —Mi r a 03:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support...while I fully support the concept of using a limited number of categories to help wikipedians link with each other to grow articles based on common interest, the political ideology/identification categories, have, at least as far as I've observed, served no purpose other than to provide ripe recruiting grounds for people with similar ideologies on XfD's. This is not "community building", it's nothing more than an inline tool for politicized bludgeoneering of serious discussion. I have no problem seeking comment from people who have demonstrated interest in a subject, don't get me wrong...even "spamming" 50 talk pages of people who have edited articles related to whatever particular subject (as long as you don't pick and choose too excessively whom to "spam" based on your preferred outcome), but a category such as this allows for identification of probsible like-minded souls who have never contributed to XYZ coming in out of the blue w/ no real interest other than a shared political identity, and voting whatever way their recruiter does. I don't want to sound like I'm making an assumption of bad faith wrt people who have never contributed to X on an XfD, but when their input is solicited based on something as flimsy as shared political philosophy, red flags start going up for me all over the place. Category:Jewish Wikipedians, Category:Buddhist Wikipedians, fine. (Incidentally, I fully believe that Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians and Category:Gay Wikipedians really need to go away as well... not only do these categories fall under the rubric of this discussion, but they also fall under the rubric of Wikipedia is not a dating service and point up a very clear WP:NPOV problem, as they should either be Straight|Gay (respectively) or Heterosexual|Homosexual (respectively)...) Tom e r ^talk 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose as per Wantman. Also, the 'all subcategories' clause is far too broad. This category overlaps with many others, and deleting all its subcategories would get rid of many categories that have more than just a political meaning. Zorblek (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transform into categories demonstrating interest in a particular field of politics, rather than agreement.--Eloquence * 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ideal that Wikipedians should only act based on their desire to write an encyclopedia, and not on their outside beliefs, is utopian and fundamentally impossible. It sounds good, but people can't check their biases at the door no matter how much people claim they can and should. It's better to get their biases out on the table. The anti-votestacking argument is, fundamentally, an argument that only those who follow *fD closely should participate in those discussions, and is thus inherently itself elitist and divisive. Jay Maynard 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anything that isn't "fundamentally impossible" is utterly worthless, as an ideal. It is only in striving for the impossible that greatness happens. We should strive for NPOV on an individual level while editing here; the degree to which we achieve it at an individial level is not as important as the act of striving.

Furthermore, many of us suggesting these categories be deleted support putting biases on the table, too, so that's a red herring. Vote-stacking is also a minor point at most, which you've managed to mischaracterize as a rather bad straw-man. The main point is that we're networking by to non-encyclopedic means rather than networking by encyclopedic means. If people network the way that's being suggested, they won't be homogenous or lonely, they won't be in denial, and they won't miss out on XfDs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please move all these user-related categories to a separate wiki and redirect the time and effort spent on them (evidenced above) to the encyclopedia's content. David Kernow 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but that is more because I think the whole thing needs sorting out properly and deleting a category is not going to sort it all out. This is the same sort of discussion as occurs endlessly on POV userboxes and anything that stems from individuals showing their own POV. It would be better to draw-up and agree a policy to cover all this and work from that. Without a consensus on a policy deleting this category will just produce something similar elsewhere. --Mark S (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wanted to offer an insightful and witty observation, but GTBacchus and Drini have selfishly used up all the good material. All I can do is agree with them. Doc Tropics 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Weak keep. As others have pointed out, "where does it stop?" For instance, if userboxes for "X is a conservative Wikipedian" are allowed to be kept, all people need to do for vote-stacking purposes is to look at the Template and click "what links here" for the same darn list. Or people could all create infoboxes or the like listing their positions, then search the Talk ___domain for "Politics:Foo." The only way to stop this is to ban all categories (that aren't "Wikipedia Admins" or "blocked users" and the like) and prohibit lookup in the Talk ___domain for Templates. Now, as it happens, I am in fact in favor of nuking all the user page personal-website stuff. But half-measures aren't going to do it, and there's already an entrenched community with a lot of work built up this way. So I'd oppose the current proposal as futile and unlikely to actually do much aside from annoy people. I'd support the general nuke... but realistically, that won't be happening. SnowFire 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a push to move userboxes out of template space, endorsed by Jimbo Wales, called the Wikipedia:German userbox solution. This is the long-term answer to the issue of using "what links here" to look at templates to get a list of users who believe in a certain thing; removing these (and other similar) categories that allow users to sort themselves by their beliefs and opinions (as opposed to harmless demographic stuff) is the other half of the solution. As to the question of "where it stops", it stops when everyone comes around to the realisation that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, and our only purpose here is to write the encyclopedia. Warrens 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
First, I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion. This is exactly what should happen at xFD. As I read over everyone's comments, I am struck with how much common ground there is, while at the same time there is quite a bit of disagreement. What I'd like to do for the moment is talk about where we agree, because I think we might be able to create a middle path that addresses everyone's concerns.

Believe it or not, I actually would consider removing ALL Wikipedia user categories. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time hanging out at Wikipedia:Categorization (I facilitated and wrote the last overhaul of the page), I too find the notion of categorizing Wikipedia users un-encyclopedic. If removing these categories is undertaken, I would want to have a simple policy or guideline that I could point to. It should explain in a sentence or two why the measure is being taken, and that it is being applied fairly. I can imagine something that says "No user pages should be placed in categories". But this does not work unless we remove user categorizations that are considered to be helpful to the community. There is all the "babel" categories, and Wikipedians by ___location, or skills. Nobody is finding fault with these categories. I have trouble wording a policy that could be applied fairly which distinguishes between categories which are helpful and which are not. Certainly, even the categories which everyone seems to agree are helpful to the community could be used in ways that people find detrimental to the community. Defenders of Israel or Iraq could start organizng around their babel categories. Many contributors to this discussion (myself included) have pointed out that if someone wants to organize around a POV issue there are many alternative methods to go about it.

The point where there is probably the most agreement is that organizing ourselves around our interests is better than organizing ourselves around beliefs. I would hope that by discussion we could change Category:XXX Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians working on XXX articles. Through friendly discussion, we would essentially leave things intact, but change the culture around these categories so that they serve a more encyclopedic purpose. Along these lines we can encourage notice boards around topics of interest. Many of these boards already exist. I started the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board over a year ago for the purpose of keeping people interested in the subject informed about what was happening with articles and categories related to LGBT subjects. This I believe is why many others have created user categories. Everyone thinks they are protecting articles they care about from the POVs of other people. Granted, the people who have "signed up" on the LGBT notice board are more likely than not self-identified as LGBT, but in principle they do not have to be, and anyone can watch the page and monitor how NPOV the postings on the page are. So I too think these notice boards would be much better than categories, and I have seen supporters of this CFD point to noticeboards as an alternative. My problem here is that efforts to create NPOV notice boards have been dealt with with a very heavy hand. I'd like to point out the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board. This page grew out of the Wikipedia:Conservative notice board which was likely created with a POV agenda in mind. Several people tried shaping it into a NPOV Politics notice board, but that effort was dealt with rather severely by Tony Sidaway and quickly deleted. So if consensus can be reached about allowing notice boards, I'll be willing to sign on to using them as an alternative to categories.

My concerns are not about keeping these categories because I like them. I don't use them, and I don't belong to any of the politics categories. I am not a conservative (I'm anything but). My biggest concern here is about the process of going about this through a CfD and how it will be perceived. I think this action would just antagonize many people who are already upset about userboxes and other recent events. It feels harsh. I'd rather, with persuasion, try to convince people to adjust these categories into something that would be better. I think many of the suggestions just above mine are quite good. I hope we can reach some sort of compromise where we say getting rid of the categories as they are now is a goal, and we won't do it with this CFD. Let's work towards sending the right message and slowly refashion the categories into something more encyclopedic and conducive to consensus through discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 21:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the categories are divisive and unhelpful. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - In a perfect world we would slowly convince people of these views and eventually everyone would peacefully agree to remove these largely empty and irrelevant categories... and then the unicorns would all dance in the sunshine. Suspecting that such a solution might take rather a long time to come to fruition I'll settle for a reasoned discussion wherein a strong majority agree that removal is for the best. I think we might be close enough to that for this to succeed and thus I am supporting the motion. The only reason I say >weak< delete is that I think we still have a ways to go before this would be accepted without some disruption, but I'm hoping that any such here will be relatively minor. I would suggest that it might make sense to leave this discussion open a bit longer than usual, widely publicize it, and set high standards for a finding of consensus to remove. Such a major change should be considered as widely as possible and efforts made to prevent it being a surprise if enacted. As to the 'pro' and 'con' arguments; Yes, the categories allow expression of belief and notification of possible biases, but those things are not vitally important and can as easily be accomplished by writing 'I support <whatever>' on your user page. Yes, users will probably shift to religious and other categories if these are deleted... but then, those would be the next to go. The 'vote stacking' bit is a concern, but not to me of primary importance... I really don't think removing these will have much impact there. Even if all user 'ideology' categories and userboxes were removed people would still just go to relevant talk pages to compile lists of like-minded individuals. However, there is a more fundamental issue here: I don't like widgets. People who do like widgets annoy me as they are obviously supporting the unjustified repression of doo-dads and thingamabobs. Widgets get all the best government and collegiate positions and I've got strong disagreements with people who can't see that. When I see a user page with 'Category:Users supporting widgets' it creates a divide between me and those damned widget-lovers. No matter how open-minded and focused on encyclopedia building I try to be it inherently divides Wikipedians from each other on ideological grounds and makes working together in a neutral fashion that little bit more difficult. I have never had such identifiers on my user page... not because I wish to hide them, frankly I think that's largely impossible, but because I don't think we should be defining ourselves in those ways HERE because it gets in the way. Have whatever beliefs you like. Be vocal about them with others if you wish... but don't declare your partisanship in a project devoted to being non-partisan. Obviously most people do so with no ill-intentions, but I think Wikipedia is better served by leaving such ideologies at the door. --CBD 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep, per Deco's position. And also because removing this is tantamount to censorship of people's views, as if people are meant to keep their views to themselves (by the way, this anti-free-speech approach is also hurtful to democracy in general). I strongly believe that it's super-helpful to know Wikipedia editors' biases, as I think it keeps _everyone_ on their toes in working toward NPOV and representing as many notable views as possible within encyclopedia articles. Why are we so afraid that we might be different and hold different views? Why all the fear? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stevietheman, hi. Would it change your mind if you knew that everybody supporting the deletion of these categories wants you to declare all your views that you want to clearly on your userpage, and please let us know what you're interested in and how you feel, just via some means other than user categories, and if we also provided mulitiple ways to facilitate that? I feel that you're arguing against a position that isn't really there. It turns out this is not about fear, and I offer myself as an example - I challenge you to come up with a view that someone could hold that I'm not comfortable with. I'm actually one of the more tolerant guys you'll ever find. I just care a lot about Wikipedia, and honestly believe that there are better ways we can express our individuality and network and build a community, all of which I'm deeply in favor of. Please read the detailed reasons actually being given for deletion, and please reconsider. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my user talk, my vote is not a response to your individual vote, so there's no need to take it personally. Re: my vote, it's my position that these categories, on top of other methods, is a viable method for identifying bias. It does not "improve" the Wikipedia in any way to remove these categories. I want the best Wikipedia possible as well, and knowing each other's biases (via multiple means) helps us produce as unbiased a work as possible. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Per User:Eloquence's suggestion above, Can we change this from a massive deletion to a massive rename and merging of most user categories? The entire collection of categories would be called something like Category:Wikipedians by topic worked on and the individual topics would all be renamed to something more NPOV. Category:Conservative Wikipedians would become Category:Wikipedians working on articles related to Conservatism. Someone who is not a conservative, might find it useful to put themselve in such a category, and doing so would not be seen as being divisive. Each category could also have an associated notice board. This would be much less controversial and promotes better behavior. As part of this, I would merge all user categories related to user's interests, sex, sexuality, age, ethnicity, religion, personal beliefs, physical handicaps, etc... The only excptions would be geographical ___location and langauges spoken and perhaps a few others if they have a clear and proven value to the project.

Any takers? -- Samuel Wantman 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, hi. I think this suggestion has some merit, but there are some problems. Like, what is an article related to Conservativism? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting that we can make the transition smoother by simply reworking these categories into interest categories rather than position taking ones. I think that's a laudable idea, but I don't see a simple mapping from one set of categories to the other.

You'll notice I began my argument to delete these categories by saying that I think this is premature. I agree that we ought to go ahead and encourage the building of networks along encylcopedic lines, i.e., relating to how we write the encyclopedia. In particular, I think it would be great for more people to set up and join WikiProjects, Portals, and Issue-based noticeboards. That's a slightly larger jump from where we are than just switching to interest based categories, but I think it's where we want to end up. Simply moving from "user who believes X" to "user interested in X" is ok, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really get us where we need to be, and it doesn't address the fact that there are lots of people who are really ready to identify as Big-endians, and "vote" Big-endian if a vote comes up, but who don't actually work on Big-endian related articles.

In other words, I definitely agree with emphasizing Portals, Projects and Noticeboards, but I don't see a direct mapping from where we are to there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Here is a map. First we put tags on all the categories affected and explain why and how they are going to be renamed. There would be a time period (two weeks?) before the rename actually happens. In the interim, all the new categories would have to be created. Empty message boards could also be created, like this one. Then we leave messages on every user page linked to one of these categories. We explain that users what is happening and that they are still free to express themselves and their opinions on their userpage and talk pages, while emphasizing the importance of NPOV editing. Users would also be invited to join the appropriate wikiproject and/or noticeboard. This would probably also fit well with the German userbox policy. After two weeks, people would be moved from the old category to the new ones. People would remove themselves from any category they don't want to stay in. This entire proposal would need to be well publicized and discussed before starting. As for the people who are really ready to identify as Big-endians, and "vote" Big-endian if a vote comes up, but who don't actually work on Big-endian related articles, these are not the people we are trying to accomodate. These are the people we want to educate.

Also, Perhaps the conservative category is better named Category:Wikipedians working on articles about Conservative politics. -- Samuel Wantman 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're going in a good direction, but I don't like the idea of setting up a bunch of empty, "template" political WikiProjects or noticeboards. Those should arise organically in response to a need. Who's going to know what to do with a bunch of new WikiProjects all of a sudden? That process should be gradual (and should have happened before these categories were brought to CfD). Regarding "articles about conservative politics"... name three. Do you think that people who identify as conservatives are people who really want to work on articles about the philosophy of conservativism? I suspect they're mostly people who hold a rough constellation of ideas that fall under the umbrella of "conservative" - free-market, small government, traditional morals, etc. They're calling themselves conservative in the context of those various issues, not in the context of conservativism in the abstract. Maybe I'm just generalizing really wrong here, but I don't see Category:Conservative Wikipedians translating very well into any particular interest category - more like a dozen or so of them, and individual conservatives would pick and choose which of those they really care about.

It's not a one-to-one mapping, because user categories weren't conceived with the encyclopedia in mind, and the categories that we ought to arrange ourselves into, are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a one-to-one mapping. We can let people discuss the renaming on the talk page of each category. They'd all need to be submitted to CFD for discussion about the renaming, but most shouldn't be that controversial. I strongly believe that most people in the categories are not trying to push any agendas. Guidelines should make it clear that the categories should be renamed so that it is obvious that the categories would contain people on both sides of the ideology or subject matter. Another possibility is that we could move everyone into much broader categories, So conservatives, moderates, liberals, fascists and communists might end up with Category:Wikipedians working on articles about politics. People could make more specialized categories if needed, and they could be monitored for any implied bias. I don't see a problem with Category:Wikipedians working on articles about Communism, but would see a problem with Category :Wikipedians working on articles about exploitation of workers. The notice boards don't have to be created, but we can post information about how to make one and show a blank example. -- Samuel Wantman 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this: We start a couple of these encyclopedic-style categories as examples. We set up some large infrastructure for them, with well defined limits, but lots of room for people to be creative. Then we let people populate this new category space, according to some guidelines that make it clear that categorization is done according to area of encyclopedic interest or work, and not according to beliefs or opinions. "Editor categories" will derive their legitimacy from having a clear set of articles associated to them that can be worked on in a coherent manner. We'll encourage people to set up, associated with a category, a Noticeboard, or a WikiProject, or even a Portal (and we'll provide good examples of each). This will give people structure they can use to network, express their individuality through participation in their chosen projects, and build a community that is part of the development of, and not ultimately antagonistic to, the encyclopedia we're working on. We could take some time to let people migrate into that new structure, and then, at a predetermined date, go ahead and start clearing out the old categories.

So... I think we're getting closer and closer to saying the same thing... what do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the same page. I would add that we will decide to close this CFD as Keep for now, but when the new structure is in place and running migrate people into the new categories and eventually Delete all user interest categories. How do we get everyone else to sign on? -- Samuel Wantman 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suspect this conversation is being watched, to some degree. Let's leave this CfD out in the wind for another day or so and see what people think of this compromise – I think our agreeing between the two of us is a good sign, but the tango we're talking about takes more than two... Maybe in the meanwhile, we can rough up some infrastructure for a good user categorization scheme. Any ideas how it should all hang together? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do this is to start making it happen without doing anything that needs community consensus. This could be done by: 1) Creating new replacement categories and a mapping scheme. This should tie in with as many WikiProjects as possible. 2) Creating templates to place on all the old categories explaining why they are not desired, and why the new ones would be better. 3) Recruiting more community support and involvement. 4) Having discussions about modifying existing user boxes so they use the new categories. 5) Notifying the individuals in the categories of what we are doing and asking for voluntary compliance. So it sounds like we need a new WikiProject. Perhaps we can call it something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians at work. -- Samuel Wantman 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a new WikiProject. Everyone is welcome to help out. I've decided to call it Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians working (shortcut WP:WWW).--Samuel Wantman 07:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) I like the concept, but my primary concern would be refinement. If you have a 'Category:Wikipedians working on religion articles' eventually someone IS going to say to themself, 'I only work on articles about faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster... I should create a sub-category for that to be more specific... and another one for those 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' cultists to be fair'. We could educate and patrol for these, but it would be an ongoing issue. Also, most people opposing deletion are doing so on 'individual expression' / 'free speech' grounds... which this proposal wouldn't really address. These are reasonable categories to have because they focus on what people actually do at Wikipedia without sub-dividing it by ideology. I think they are worthwhile in themselves, but unlikely to be a solution to the issue here. --CBD 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that even very narrow refinements of these user categories could be presented in an NPOV way. The test should be if the category description includes people from both sides of an issue. We can create guidelines that explains this better. Narrow refinements like working on articles abut the Invisible Pink Unicorn Cult would probably be acceptable if they actually call themselves a cult. Also, if challenged with deletion because a category looks like it may have been designed to push an agenda, a reasonable defense would be demonstrating that there are editors from both sides of the debate. -- Samuel Wantman 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the categories will derive their legitimacy solely from their relation to actual collections of articles that members work on, to whatever degree. As far as the granularity, I'd rather start with more detailed categories, like "This user works on Hinduism articles" than with coarse grained categories like "This user works on religion articles". The more well-defined the scope of the category and associated project, the better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also like this idea, instead of having to say you are affiliated with that group, you can simply say you are interested in articles about that group. It seems more appropriate and oddly, rehashing a previous example for keep, if a republican wanted to get an opposing view on an article, he would not have to go to the democrat group, he can simply ask a democrat interested in republican articles. It creates a less bias pool for work.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any category "Wikipedians by opinion", keep or create categories "Wikipedians by interest" or "Wikipedians per area of specialized knowledge". Kusma (討論) 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, a political ideology or opinion was a kind of interest. Just thought I would throw that in. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can be interested in or knowledgeable about a political ideology without supporting it. I hope we have many Wikipedians interested in Nazi Germany, but not many who support fascism. A category for Wikipedians interested in fascism will probably not consist of fascists. Kusma (討論) 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Interest" can be either intellectual inquisitiveness, as you say, or outright support. There are different levels of interest. That's what I'm saying. I would support categories for either level of interest. Nobody thus far has described the harm in keeping these current categories beyond "possible" events. Nobody has ever approached me for votestacking. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, Stevie. Three times in the last week or so, there've been vote-stacking attempts using at least two different categories, one political, one religious. We're not just making up problems, it turns out - this is largely a reaction to actual vote-stacking that actually happened on many occasions. Would links help, to examples? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care what these few examples are. Punishing the rest of us who use these categories honorably is absolutely unacceptable, and may very well trigger my leaving Wikipedia. If I cannot have freedom of association here, then what's the effing point of participating? I'm sorry you support this totalitarian effort to remove these categories, but there's nothing you can ever demonstrate that will shake my position. Freedom is paramount. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd actually leave Wikipedia over user-space categorisation issues, you're not really here to write an encyclopedia then, are you? Talk about "freedom" and "totalitarianism" all you like, but we are here for one very specific purpose; anything adjunct to that is a distraction that takes us away from that task. We will always have the choice to associate with other Wikipedians in the context of individual articles, Wikiprojects, Portal work, and so forth... nobody would dare suggest taking that away from us! Such associations are an important part of the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia, and helps drive the project forward. However, Category:Wikipedians by politics and many of its subcategories have only existed since October 2005; somehow Wikipedia managed to prosper quite nicely without this kind of user-based categorisation for years prior to then, and it certainly could continue to do so in the future. Warrens 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warren, take a look at the work I've done here, and then say all that again with a straight face. Give that a try. Also, I'm fully aware why we are here. Don't you dare talk down to me like that. It's just that removing these categories is an extremely gross perversion against free speech, and it holds the level of unacceptability that yes, would make me reconsider my presence here. I refuse to work under conditions where viable helpful mechanisms are being swiped out from under us for no g-d good reason. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, freedom isn't paramount here. Writing an encyclopedia is. I have a hard time taking seriously the accusation that I'm supporting totalitarian efforts to limit association, when I'm putting in hours and hours creating WikiProjects, trying to get people to associate more and work together more, and building bridges wherever I can. "If I can't have freedom of association here, then what's the point of participating," you ask. How about to write an encyclopedia? We're asking that you use Wikipedia to associate and network in an encyclopedic fashion, and restrict your non-encyclopedic association and networking to, oh, the rest of the internet and the rest of the world. But apparently, if you can't use these servers to set up a clubhouse the way you want to do it, you're going to pick up your toys and go home? Don't let your ass hit the door on the way out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. What a crazy response that was. This is nothing about "setting up a clubhouse." It's about identifying bias, remember? Wake up! I like to say, "You are whatever you compromise with". You are compromising with the agents against appropriate free expression in the Wikipedia. And if you wish me a speedy exit, after the tremendous work I've done, you are a creep. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if posting in frustration when I was obviously hurt by your remarks and should have walked away from the computer instead of hitting "save" makes me a creep, then I'm a creep. I don't think I've called you a name through all of this, because I don't think any particular action of yours is sufficient for me to say what you are. Furthermore, I find labeling people like that to be counterproductive. I'd like it if we could focus on the content of what people say, rather than what kind of people we think they are. If I've managed to insult you personally, then I apologize.

Now, despite your rude implication that I'm not paying attention ("Wake up!"). I've actually explained to you and others at length that this isn't about identifying bias, because there are many other ways to do that. If you think you can't identify your bias except by linking to a category of others who share that bias, then I guess you've lost me, and you'll have to explain that in smaller words. I feel like it's very easy for me to identify that I have some bias, for example by saying so, even if I never join a category of others who share it. What am I missing?

One more point - your position seems to be shifting under your feet. First you were certain that vote-stacking never happens, then when offered examples that it happens regularly, and is disruptive, you didn't care to see the evidence (very constructive!), you just didn't care because "freedom is paramount" (more paramount than writing an encyclopedia?). Which freedom though? Well, first it was freedom of association, but when those who would delete these categories are actually working to create infrastructure for better, more encyclopedic association, you claim that it's about freedom of expression, which really doesn't make sense, unless you forgot we're talking about categories here, and not about userboxes. What will you argue when it's made clear that the people supporting deletion also support revelation of bias, and encourage association among editors? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to stick up for Stevie. I have also been thinking about whether I would want to stay in a project where free association gets harder and harder. The way to respond to these concerns is to hear them and try to respond to the real concerns. I think my concerns are being heard with my discussion with GT above. It is Stevie's concern that makes me feel so strongly that wholesale deletion is a very bad idea. There will be many valuable contributors, who do not abuse these categories, or even like myself, don't even look at these categories, that will be upset about their deletion for reasons of principle. It is for this reason that I am trying to work out a solution that doesn't delete them and instead creates a better alternative. Hopefully these categories will wither and die a natural death. To force that death is asking for trouble. -- Samuel Wantman 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why one needs a category to associate themselves with being a democrat or republican. The categories themselves are being abused, noone is saying you cannot say you are a republican, or that your userbox will be deleted to identify you as such, the categories themselves are being used to vote stack however. The original intent of such categories has been abused and manipulated. I would even go as far as to question some of the defenses here. Some people states they groups are good because a republican can look up a democrat through the category to seek an opposing view ... Has that happened in the 6+ months these categories have been in place? Lots of vote stacking has occured, I wonder if many of the defenses here of "what ifs" has actually happened or they are just utopic ideas of what these categories could have been. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Samuel Wantman. I hate to think that this will cause some users to leave. I was thinking of "throwing in the towel" myself (I am somewhat new to Wikipedia). I went back to editing to get my mind off of this heated fight. Sure doesn't seem like a discussion right now. JungleCat 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way to address the concerns Samuel's expressing here is to directly work to provide affirmative means of association to replace and supersede the current user categories. If people really need to network according to personal belief, as opposed to encyclopedic interest, I would question the encyclopedic value of that type of networking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot shake the idea, and have seen very little evidence to the contrary, that the traditional Wikipedia admin tends to lean leftward. I have considered the fact that it seems clear that anything conservative is speedily deleted while other less-conservative notice boards and categories are left in place. Frankly, I have seen absurd bias paraded as NPOV in articles and those who worked to try to balance this by involving other users to be accused of spamming. Now I am told that using categories and userboxes to try to have some sort of voice of relevence in this sea of POV biased editors is not allowed, when I sometimes feel it is the only way to try to retain some sort of a shred of identity and community in a great sea of dissention. I have never used these categories to "vote stack". I have often thought about putting messages on other users pages to call for help against a strong leftist bias on some articles, but frankly, have been intimidated from doing so because I have seen users blasted by admins as being spammers and vote stackers for doing so. The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous. The idea that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased is ridiculous. The idea that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV article writing and editing is ridiculous. The idea of being a lone voice that will be taken seriously in a consensus debate is ridiculous. The idea that asking for additional assistance from those who view a perspective in a similar way is not by definition vote stacking. If it is decided by the powers that be that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I feel the entire premise of Wikipedia is flawed, and I must exit it and anything like it, or find one that is more transparent and accepting of human qualities. DavidBailey 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DavidBailey, I get this weird feeling in this discussion... it's like, if I were to say to my wife (suppose I'm married), "Honey, let's build a deck in the back yard," and she says "Why do you hate America so much?" I say to her, "I don't hate America, in fact, I love America, I just think we should build a deck in the back yard." Then she says, "I just don't understand why you deck-builders hate America so much." In particular, nobody has said that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else. If someone said that, please point them out. Nobody has said that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased. If someone said that, please point them out. I think one or two people have said that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV editing, but those certainly aren't the strong or popular arguments; I think the idea that disclosure of bias is a bad idea is mad. As for being a lone voice in a consensus debate, I don't think those of us asking for deletion of these categories oppose bringing more eyes to a debate. The only issue you're identifying that I see as real is the idea that asking for assistance from those with a similar perspective is good or bad, and that's not even the central issue in this deletion discussion. If you think that anyone is suggesting that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I'd like to know who that is. I really feel like you're asking me why I hate America so much, and I don't, and it's hard to shake the idea that you haven't read my arguments here, or that you choose to ignore them in favor of the ones that are easy to tear apart, namely the strawman arguments that hardly anybody's making. Can you say something in response to the reasonable arguments being made, or do you not think those exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GT, I'm glad you feel that Wikipedia is so tolerant and accepting of all viewpoints and that the current system favors only those who support all of the Wikipedia policies, but my experience has been otherwise. I also know that you've shot down my views before and apparently feel the need to do so again with statements like "can you say something in response to the reasonable arguments being made, or do you not think those exist?" Since you think my views are all strawmen and so easily dismissable, feel free to do so. DavidBailey 03:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, DavidBailey, I'm not trying to be rude. I apologize for any discourtesy I've shown you, please forgive me. I didn't call your views strawmen; I suggested that you were responding to strawmen in lieu of responding to what I feel are the good arguments being advanced. I don't know how to react when you say "The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous." That statement is certainly true, and I don't see its relevance. Is that the reason being given for deletion of Category:Liberal Wikipedians, because that one's just as much up for deletion here, you know. I think the strong reasons people are giving for getting rid of these categories is that they promote factionalism, and that they're inferior to a better, more encyclopedic way to foster association. Despite this, most people arguing for keeping the categories are using arguments like "if the categories are used for vote-stacking, punish the perpetrators, not everyone" and "revealing bias is a good thing, not a bad thing". I fail to see how these arguments for keeping are at all addressing the arguments for deletion. They seem to be addressing some other arguments instead. Am I making sense here, or just managing to come across as some kind of dick? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to not participate in these discussions until I can find the time to read the pages and pages of history (I've read many of them), and the many more pages of similar discussions having been had all across Wikipedia on related topics. Perhaps then I can pose relevant points to discussion. Perhaps I was venting because it seems that one way to encourage increased participation is to let users know, "hey, there are others like you that have similar interests and views." Since I have started over six months ago with Wikipedia, everything has seemed like an uphill battle. I have found seemingly few to express perspectives similar to mine on the scope and thrust of articles, and POV matters when it comes to what is important in an article and what isn't, even if you're attempting to be NPOV. Also, I'm tired of those many editors who seem to think that if they can out-vote you, they have a consensus that can ignore your perspective and views. (Yes, I've quoted the policies to them, what little good that does.) It seems to me that there are minorities on Wikipedia, and frankly, conservatives fall into this category. Encouraging more conservatives to join, interact, and participate should not cause existing admins to cringe, it should be reason to celebrate, if the goals of Wikipedia are truly NPOV. By forcing these categories, both liberal and conservative, to go away, you are forcing users to stumble across articles largely at random to find others with similar interests. Orienting themselves around specific interests instead of broader categories is a good way to ensure that fewer, not more, editors participate in a discussion. It is far more convenient (read "takes less time") and encouraging when users are allowed to group into communities in which they feel comfortable to collaborate, share ideas, and work together on articles. I reject the idea that more editors, not less, make a better article. This is especially true when it comes to controversial articles. However, everyone has to want to collaborate and those who just want to argue need to have administrative action taken against them. I have no problems with there being liberal categories (heavens knows they're out there now) and I think conservative categories should be given the opportunity to increase the amount of conservative participation. I think factionalism can be dealt with directly to the individuals that misuse Wikipedia. Perhaps there are too few admins and too many editors. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new admin category. That is someone who has an interest in a category that can crack the whip only within the category (IE- implement admin controls on the category to those who break the category rules of NPOV, cooperation, etc.) and even expell some from it who repeatedly violate Wikipedia rules. Whatever it takes, I feel strongly that these categories should be allowed to exist, side-by-side with notice boards, and perhaps, although I am less concerned with, user boxes. DavidBailey 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kusma abakharev 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all political user categories. Divisive, inflammatory, unnecessary. Doesn't help build an encyclopedia but does help vote-stack. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I see no problem with identifying one's self politically in the userspace, and having categories intended for use in the userspace to that end. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political categories (Category:Foo-Endian Wikipedians) as disruptive and unhelpful, keep interest-based categories (Category:Wikipedians interested in Foo-Endism) as useful. I see no problem with identifying one's self politically in userspace, not category space. Also remember, the number of Foo-Endians absolutely dwarfs the number of people who edit Foo-Endian-related articles, for all values of Foo-Endian that I'm aware of. --CComMack 14:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please, user categorization may be a little bit of a catalyst, but is not the cause of any abuse. There must be a less destructive way to curb abuse. --Snarius 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion and nomination for deletion. This category was kept twice as a result of two earlier Cfd debates. January 4 2006 and December 18 2005 Nominator is wasting time by renominating and repeating the rejected arguments used in the earlier debates. --Facto 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE On december, these categories were closed as KEEP while on January they were closed as No consensus. It's been over 6 months since then, it's valid to CFD again to gauge consensus. -- Drini 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still radical to keep bringing them up for deletion, when they were kept twice. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Travb (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason to remove the categories. Should somebody use them for vote stacking, then punish the user, don't remove the category. (And, after all, if somebody wanted to engage in vote stacking, then linking to a bogus page in user space would have worked just as well - or are you going to prohibit that, too?) Keep. - Mike Rosoft 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The proponents of removing these categories are punishing free association and transparence to go after very few rules breakers. It's like punishing a city for the crimes of a small group of its citizens. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work}
Careful whose mouth you put words into, Stevie. You're incorrect about what "the proponents of removing these categories" want, but I guess that's what happens when you get into the habit of identifying people in terms of simple categories - "This user is a democrat", "this user is a creep", "this user is a proponent of political category removal". Why listen, when you already know what someone thinks? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My comment: Punishing? By what do you mean? Your anology is only half right. Sometimes the entire city are punished or a platoon, in the military, is punished for one's goof up. Sometimes, life isn't fair and I believe that this could be use for malicious reasons that can potentially grow out-of-control. --Moreau36 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of things that could be used for malicious reasons, and generally, when they are, we go after the individual perpetrators. Just because there are examples of unfairness in the real world, that doesn't mean that it's all right to be unfair. And these categories in and of themselves do no damage to and indeed create benefits (greater tranparence) for the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty brazen of you to say they do no damage when you said, "I don't care," when offered examples of the damage they do. Did you forget saying that, Stevie? Is that the best you've got? Also, do you have any replies to the other, stronger arguments for deletion, besides the "vote-stacking" argument? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insofaras many Categories I have investigated seem to have no encyclopædic value (Category:things which occured on Wednesday which is false, Category:N Sync Songs which is real), destroy them all (retaining only categories for wiki house keeping ie. stubs, style). However considering the ability for wikipedia to expand far beyond the possibility of print documents I believe that the rash deletion of almost every thing by some is insane and a grave danger to wikipedia, therefore keep everything and refine, say 'user categories' with all categories pertaining only to users as sub-categories. This deletion process is one of the most profoundly factional things I have seen on wikipedia and seems to have been initiated by like minded persons in close geographic proximity without the aid of categories. Keep I just cannot understand why categories are so contentious, they are not THAT powerful and NPOV is not an achivable meatspace possibility, it is an abstracted ideal toward which we here work. That is not to say it has no value, only that no person can ever actually percieve/concieve without inherent bias.—Dananimal 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you're mischaracterizing the arguments of people saying delete, or at least choosing the poorest and easiest to tear up of those arguments. In particular, when you say that no person can ever actually perceive/conceive without inherent bias, you seem to be suggesting that anybody is making an argument for deletion that sounds something like "if we delete categories, people will be able to edit without bias". In fact, nobody is saying that, and your responding to that argument instead of the intelligent ones being made strikes me as somewhat prejudicial, as if ignoring the more difficult arguments will make everyone forget that they exist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Copied from above] I cannot shake the idea, and have seen very little evidence to the contrary, that the traditional Wikipedia admin tends to lean leftward. I have considered the fact that it seems clear that anything conservative is speedily deleted while other less-conservative notice boards and categories are left in place. Frankly, I have seen absurd bias paraded as NPOV in articles and those who worked to try to balance this by involving other users to be accused of spamming. Now I am told that using categories and userboxes to try to have some sort of voice of relevence in this sea of POV biased editors is not allowed, when I sometimes feel it is the only way to try to retain some sort of a shred of identity and community in a great sea of dissention. I have never used these categories to "vote stack". I have often thought about putting messages on other users pages to call for help against a strong leftist bias on some articles, but frankly, have been intimidated from doing so because I have seen users blasted by admins as being spammers and vote stackers for doing so. The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous. The idea that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased is ridiculous. The idea that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV article writing and editing is ridiculous. The idea of being a lone voice that will be taken seriously in a consensus debate is ridiculous. The idea that asking for additional assistance from those who view a perspective in a similar way is not by definition vote stacking. If it is decided by the powers that be that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I feel the entire premise of Wikipedia is flawed, and I must exit it and anything like it, or find one that is more transparent and accepting of human qualities. DavidBailey 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply above. I think you're badly mischaracterizing the arguments for deletion in terms of the silliest and easiest to refute arguments imaginable, and ignoring the good arguments. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - I think it's significant that a third option came to light over the course of this discussion. Not many people have commented on the third option (which is what Samuel and I have discussed - migrating belief categories to encyclopedic interest categories), and I think it could be less than productive to close this CfD as a delete without acknowledging that some people are working to make the transition less disruptive. I'd also like to directly ask for feedback on this "third way" solution, would some kind of RfC be appropriate? Or a policy proposal page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the fine tradition of descriptive policy making, I consider a policy proposal on this issue to be "premature." An RfC and/or straw poll approach laying out a range of viable alternatives most likely would be more productive at this stage. Rfrisbie^talk 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Descriptive policy making also means that people can start creating an alternative (within existing guidelines) without having to get approval of the community. What GTBacchus and I have been discussing does not require any official proposal or approval. I've created the beginnings of a WikiProject to coordinate working on the "third way". It is based on the idea that this would all be voluntary. I hope people will help in this effort. It does imply that this CfD would be closed as a "Keep and see what happens with a voluntary approach". -- Samuel Wantman 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I fully agree with Rfrisbie and SamuelWantman here. Perhaps it would help ensure a proper closure if we can get a few of the "delete" supporters to change their support to "keep and allow some Wikipedians to try a more organic approach," perhaps with an understanding that we'll reconsider in 6 months, or something like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  To be frank, I don't think it is possible to close this in any way but "Keep". I just looked at some of the subcategories and noticed that they have not been properly linked to this page. Doesn't that means that this CFD is fatally flawed and must be closed as "Keep"? If that is the case. I hope it doesn't get reopened, as I would rather not go through this again! -- Samuel Wantman
  To be frank, there are more than two ways to close a CfD. If a few categories didn't get tagged, that doesn't prevent us from doing the right thing. In this case, I think that means closing this as a "keep while a third way solution is implemented, and then talk about deleting." It's never the case that an XfD must be closed in a particular way because of a technicality, hence Hipocrite's Wikilawyering comment below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
  WP:Wikilawyering applies. I tagged every category that existed when I did my mass tagging. Someone adding a new category does not invalidate an RFC. To the parent, I believe that your cause would be better fufilled by a "delete" result, as the vast majoirty of the categories do not include people interested in their political persuasion except to edit war with people who disagree with them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, you have no idea whether or not that's true. Stevie's reply below is unproductive, but let's try this: if someone closes this CfD as a "delete", they'll start a huge shitstorm that will make the "userbox wars" look like a picnic in the park, and it will be entirely that person's responsibility, because they had every reason to know better. It shouldn't take much Wiki-smarts to realize that this isn't the kind of change you force through with a crowbar. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A hypothesis that is certainly interesting but not proven. Yeah, let's delete the whole Wikipedia due to the fear of a few disruptions by a few people. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Yep, let's wipe em all out (my sarcasm bigtime here). Especially when there is no "vote stacking" policy clearly defined for Wikipedia. Search for vote stacking and see what is there. And yet, this is interesting. Stevietheman and I are totally opposite in politics (lib vs con), and yet we both agree on this issue. Can't get more NPOV than that. Without user categories & cute little userboxes you wouldn't know it. JungleCat 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Um... are you for real, about "no clearly defined vote-stacking policy"? I guess Wikipedia:Spam#Internal spamming is a guideline, not a policy, but you don't have to spend too much time around too many parts of Wikipedia to realize that the bulk of the community is quite firmly of the mind that "vote-stacking = bad". Do you not believe it unless it's written down on a page labelled "policy", or what? After that I think I'm lost in your irony. You can't be seriously asserting that if a liberal and a conservative agree on something, that makes it NPOV, can you? Or are you arguing against the idea that only conservatives want user categorization by political belief, an argument that nobody's making anyway? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Well gee, I never really took the time to read detail-by-detail all 65 pages of "Wikipedia guidelines" and memorized the clearly defined vote-stacking policy named spamming. I noticed it doesn’t address what action will be taken against someone who does it. Do you honestly think you will stop an experienced user from getting around the loss of user cats? How will you track it? I and others have shown in clever examples of how to do it. Why not go after the few doing it? BTW, how will you prove NPOV in the future - Especially dealing with political articles? Will you just discuss it and then let one person rule since this is not a democracy?JungleCat 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Junglecat, there's no need to get defensive, I don't think there's anything wrong with you not having all WP guidelines at your fingertips. No, I don't think that eliminating user cats will stop vote-stacking, and I've never made that argument, because it would be a silly one. (This is exactly what I'm complaining about with people responsing to arguments other than the ones being made.) As for "why not go after the few doing it?", that question would make a lot more sense if vote-stacking were the issue being discussed. Then you might find that we do "go after" the people who do it. Eliminating user categories by belief will at least remove the tacit encouragement to spam which is implied by having the things around - I've actually seen someone say "I noticed this category existed, so I figured, why not use it to gather support?" The existence of these categories sends a message that this is a good way to think of Wikipedians, as belonging to factions which they may be called upon to support. I think that's a terrible way to think of Wikipedians; I think of us as being a bunch of individuals who share the goal of writing an excellent, accurate, fair and neutral encyclopedia - I think of that as assuming good faith.
  
  Finally, "how will you prove NPOV in the future? I really don't understand this question. Do you think we "prove NPOV" now in a way that involves user categories? The way to achieve NPOV is two-fold: on an individual level, each of us strives to write from a neutral point of view; on a group level, we strive for consensus. If a bunch of people, each shooting for NPOV, can agree on something, then it's probably pretty close, and if it isn't, someone will probably come along and say so. Is there something wrong with that system? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't have a problem with "a bunch of people, each shooting for NPOV, can agree..." provided I knew that "both sides of the coin" of a debated topic was represented. This is why I oppose the removal. This is just my opinion. And yes, GTBacchus, you do have valid points also, and I respect your view. Sorry if I get on a soapbox. Best regards. JungleCat 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Isn't it far easier to tell if both sides are represented by reading the discussion than by chasing down every user page of every contributor to the discussion and checking whether some of them categorized themselves in a relevant way? I mean, if it's at all a controversial topic, people in the discussion will go out of their way to label their opponent's point of view - it's very convenient for readers. It's also much more reliable - what someone argues for passionately is a much better indicator of their POV than the categories they choose to include themselves in. As for your apology at the end of your post, I don't feel you've been dismissive of my opinions, and I hope I haven't been dismissive of yours. Either way makes for a poor discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'm sorry I wasn't clearer with my last comment. I was not claiming that some of the subcategories were not tagged. I was saying that ALL of the subcategories were not tagged correctly. If you click on the link that says "this categories entry" you don't end up on this page. Instead the link takes you to the top of the CFD page. This is true for ALL the subcategories. To find this discussion, you would then have to look for the parent category, yet that is not what you would likely look for. This means that anyone concerned about the deletion of one of the subcategories might not find this discussion. --Samuel Wantman 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Huh... that is a bit awkward. I wonder how many people have looked for this discussion and failed to find it. At any rate, I suspect we're not done talking about this. We need more people contributing and a broader audience for a big decision like totally revamping the way users are categorized here. What kind of page can we advertise at Village pump to get as much productive discussion as possible on the topic of user categorization? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~It's hard to see how they could miss it — it's over half of CfD.~~ — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  OOPS, it's no longer linked from CfD at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  That's because it was sent to completed discussions 2 days ago. Untill then, the links worked perfectly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmmm. Doesn't look completed to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/Rename to Category:Wikipedians by interest/Category:Wikipedians interested in writing the best darn encyclopedic articles about contriversial and potentially divisive political topics such as this one! per Samuel & GTB. Please paraphrase as needed. Rfrisbie^talk 04:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/Rename - Changing my support from "delete" to this. If there's a reasonable way to rename and repurpose these categories in an encyclopedic fashion then I support it, and it shouldn't need any red tape for it to happen. A sudden deletion of all political categories will cause way too much grief in the short run to be worth it. Let's be the kind of Wiki that learns from experience, and let's not repeat a "userbox wars"-type scenario. I request that we suspend judgement on this matter until Samuel and I and anybody else interested in helping have had a chance to try a less confrontational alternative to simple deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Lady Aleena @ 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. These will never be kept down permanently. Delete them today, they will be recreated tomorrow by those who were proud of their association with a political mindset or association and want to categorize themselves accordingly.
2. It has been said before, but user categories are useful in finding people who are sympathetic or hostile to one's views.
3. User pages and the attached categories are mostly POV at the start. How can one keep POV out of the User area of Wikipedia? People who receive Barnstars on their user pages have POV on their user pages, even if it is the POV of someone else.
4. A userbox without a user category is pointless. The only use I have for a userbox is to categorize myself, if I use a box at all. If the categories are deleted, then the userboxes should be too since they would now have no function other than to take up space.
- - I disagree with Lady Aleena again:
  - Point 2: I used to think that, but it seems they're only being used for ~~vote~~comment spamming.
  - Point 4: A userbox without a user category is quite useful — it allows users to self-identify (as in your point 1).
  - — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support most of Lady Aleena's comments. A userbox without a cat does advertise one's views, but isn't useful for community building. If the idea is to thwart votestackers, then apparently you think votestackers aren't able to Google Wikipedia for a quoted phrase. We undervalue categories that don't seem to contribute directly to the encyclopedia, but without this kind of community engagement, Wikipedia just wouldn't have as many active participants and good articles. You might as well build a city with no parks or stadiums because they don't contribute to industry. Deco 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't speak for all advocates of deletion, but from where I'm standing, the idea is not to thwart vote-stackers. It's true that the categories, as they exist, actively encourage vote-stacking, but that's a minor point. The main point is to set a less partisan, more encyclopedic tone, in keeping with WP:UP. The point is that this is a bad way to categorize ourselves relative to this project. The point is that we could be associating in a way that dovetails much more fully with our goal of writing an encyclopedia, rather than in a way that's orthogonal to that goal (this is why I favor migration over deletion - remember there are many more than two choices). The point is that these categories encourage factionalism, and the idea that it's appropriate to edit Wikipedia as a member of some faction. This is where I usually hear two replies - (1) It's impossible to check all our biases at the door, so why pretend we can be neutral when we can't, and (2) Disclosure of bias is a good thing, and leads to better NPOV editing. To the first, the response is that it doesn't matter whether you can attain it, the point is that you strive for it, and encourage others to do so as well, rather than just planting your flag in a specific prejudice and essentially saying "I think within these lines, which lines do you think within?" That way we get a bunch of lines drawn, and Wikipedia is a battlefield instead of an encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be that way. To the second point, the response is that disclosure of bias is indeed a very good thing, but user categories are a piss-poor way to go about doing it. There's a world of difference between "I feel this way" and "Here's a link to a list of 40 people who feel this way." The first is honest disclosure of bias; the second is an invitation to network along partisan lines. Please let's not network along partisan lines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this debate is rather complicated. There are a lot of arguments being thrown around, some of which are responses to others, many of which are relevant, and all of which have been repeated thrice by now, I'll bet. I just started an outline at our talk page here, attempting to get a kind of bird's eye view of the main arguments going around, for the benefit of all of us. Please feel free to help out with that; I think it could be useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/Rename - As per Samuel & GTB. I hope that voices of Wikipedians who've joined within the past 6 months are welcome in this discussion? ~ Chimaeridae 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, continue discussion elsewhere- I'm giving my conditional support for the "third way" proposed here. I think it will be a good idea to keep the categories for now and open various Wikiprojects, alternatively phrased categories (belief->interest) etc. and to encourage people to rename/move the exisitng cats. In addition,I don't remmeber if it was suggested before (so excuse me for possible reduduncy) but I think there should be opened a new place for long term discussion about the whole user categories debate where people can inform the community about new alternatives and intiatives taking place and explain why they think they are better than the currently existing categories. I think the current discussion should be closed at "keep for now" and that it shoul continue and move, as explained above, outside the deletion log which is time pressured (we already went past the 7 days and this log might be closed down any minute).I want to clarify that I do not give suport for future deletion or any compulsion-based measures in advance by supporting the above stated solutions, I still only support positive means. Also, I think we should agree that no new cfd regarding these categories be posted for a long period of time, necessary for the new solution to form and become successful, lets say +-10 months? Does this suggestion sound reasonable? Tal :) 10:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Concur with Tal, and recommend the culture be improved by dealing with the nationalism and defiance of policy visible on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Talk:Imbros and Tenedos (note: I choose two examples where two groups are at fault, although it is the same two groups.) Septentrionalis 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest change of venue to Category talk:Wikipedians by politics, which hasn't stirred a bit this whole time. That seems like a fitting place to discuss the fate of these categories in a more leisurely fashion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - give me a break. First, no political userboxes, now this. This is pure bullshit. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - divisive. --Aldux 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus

Would anyone object to closing this debate as "Keep for now and wait to see what happens"? -- Samuel Wantman 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this phrasing and further suggest, like GT, to move this discussion to Category talk:Wikipedians by politics.However, I think it may be a good idea to agree on a certain minimum time frame during which no cfd will be proposed, as I explained somewhere above...

So, on second thought, maybe the closing should be ""Keep for now and wait to see what happens, for at least (10) months" (the exact period of time, of course, can be different than the one in the example).Tal :) 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is clear consensus among people who care about the encyclopedia enough to read and respond to the arguments of the other that this is a Delete result, and I do not support a strong proponent of one side of this discussion closing it to their side. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your implication that people like me, Lady Aleena, and others, some of whom wrote detailed arguments detailing their position, don't "care about the encyclopedia". I've read the arguments of those favouring deletion and already explained that I don't find them compelling, and I don't think I should have to supply a point-by-point rebuttal. It is clear to me from the length of the debate alone that this is a contentious issue with no consensus at this time. Deco 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also object and rebuke this stubborn attitude that "people who care" are necessarily pro deletion. The lengh of this debate and the genuine efforts of many users here to reach compromise, rather than to compell a solution, proves they care A LOT. Also, it seems to me that although there is no complete consensus, te fact that many people who initaily supported deletion now tend to prefer comprimise (GTbacchus, stuffofinterest, and others), proves that we made significant progress. Additionally, it seems to me that the attitude that deletion is the only way and that any other way is not only wrong but proves that people don't care or want to cause harm, ignores and does ill justice to those users who spent so much time on trying to approach a solution through other methods, and also seems to ignore this whole discussion as being worthless. In other words, the fact that one ignores this discussion believing consensus is on his side whatever happens, doesn't mean that this is actually the case, and the fact that one makes such offensive statements instead of constructively trying to reach consesus and commenting on what people say, is both ineffective and rude.Tal :) 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the 4 individuals who voted to keep the categories and also participated meaningfully in the discussion. You are overshadowed by the horde of people who voted to delete and participated meaningfully. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into argument about "how much" people "voted" for each side, and I don't claim to know why you think the people arguing for deletion were more "meaningful" but I do know that the amount of people is irrelevant compared to the strength of the arguments. I think that many of the dominant people in this conversation reached a certain compromise, that may be acceptable to the community as a whole. The question is whether or not this solution is acceptable, and the answer can't just be "no" but should be explained.Tal :) 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I thought this wasn't a vote. BTW, am I one of the 4? It seems your comment here is more sarcastic than anything else. JungleCat 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm at all. If I were the closing admin, I would disregard all of the keep voters who said we were trying to take away their ability to call themselves liberal wikipedians, or that we were going to take this decision to delete categories and say that no more discussion was needed, and that all userboxes were done. This is probably why I don't want to close anything, ever, but I certainly don't propose to allow partisans from one side of this discussion or the other to close the debate. The category migrators can get right on their migration - have you had any success yet? Perhaps you could start with your own project members? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who proposed and started the "migration" project, I have been waiting for the result of this CFD before putting much work into getting it going. The effort, while still worthwhile has much less urgency if this CFD closes as a "delete". That is why I am asking to close this debate. As soon as it does, everyone on this page can expect a personal invitation to join, and notice about this project will go out to the broader community. I find this CFD encouraging, because I find that people from both sides of the issue were willing to hear each other and find some commonality. I'm sorry to hear that Hipocrite does not see it that way. -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the notion that those who voted "keep" for the reason you explained was somehow illegitimate just because you declare it so. It's not just about "liberal" Wikipedians... it's about all partisans and knowing the biases of contributors for the sake of transparency. Your reduction of this meaningful argument to nothing for the sake of some sort of expediency is nauseous to behold. It's anti-wikicratic and a denigration of what is really a powerful argument. Again, how dare you talk down to those of us who are making legitimate arguments! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the idea that there is ever a requirement for anyone to go beyond explaining their vote. I, for instance, had no obligation to argue my point against others (ad nauseum) but only to make it ONCE. My vote is equal to all others who voted, and if it's not viewed that way, this whole process is a sham. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, I'm finding some irony in your statements here. You say that most keep voters disregarded the delete arguments, but you're disregarding the arguments advanced against quick deletion. I haven't seen you reply to that, so how does that make you any different from the people who failed to reply to deletion arguments? Remember this isn't a vote, it's based on strenth of arguments. Right now the strongest unanswered arguments on the table are for slow deletion accompanied by migration and careful education, with lots of careful and attentive dialogue, just the way Jimbo's always suggested. I see no argument on the table for brashness or immediate deletion, certainly no refutation of the point that this would cause a rather large disruption, or any argument that the ends would justify those short-sighted means. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments against quick deletion have not yet justified the existance of the categories. "Don't delete these because people will be angry you stopped them from damaging the encyclopedia and might leave" is an argument for deletion, not against it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But look, if you can get it done, get it done. I've close it as keep. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping it now and seeking a similar system for identifying bias for transparency purposes. A total deletion without a replacement is unacceptable. Transparency of contributions is extremely important to the future vitality of the Wikipedia. I don't care too much about how transparency is achieved as long as it is achieved. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support requiring people to state their biases? How do you achieve "transparency" when people don't just come out and tell you (honestly) where they're coming from? I'm interested in this transparency idea... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two prerequisites of stating a bias are awareness and willingness. The latter is hard enough to come by. The former all too often if off the radar. Enculturation, among other factors, sees to that. Just ask a fish to tell you about how water affects it some time. Besides, a "requirement" is unenforceable. Rfrisbie^talk 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree. I'm just trying to figure out where Stevie's coming from. Maybe he'll tell us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we have now with this set of categories (whether liked or not) is a form of voluntary transparence. In my view, when enough people volunteer to do something, a kind of social encouragement for that naturally forms. I don't favor any requirements, as I believe that would scare away participants unnecessarily. It's also hard to ponder why anyone thought I meant it should be required when it was never required before. I support these categories because they encourage transparence. Transparence is a good thing, no? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the second guessing, Stevie. I didn't "think you meant" it should be required. I introduced a new question, to see what your answer would be. I wouldn't give you very good odds at guessing my intentions; better to stick with the literal words. You kind of neglected my second question. Going from "transparency = good", how is transparency acheived in cases where people choose not to state their relevant biases, or are those cases just less transparent and that's ok too, or what? Please don't suppose that I'm trying to pin you down to some corner; I'm actually trying to understand your perspective better. Any explanation you choose to share is appreciated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My second guessing was natural given what has happened on both sides of this debate (and yes, it has become a debate). Anyway, my answer to your question is... I don't know. The only point I had ever meant to make on this subject was that these categories provide one way of helping to achieve transparence. Perhaps later on, somebody will come up with another way of helping with that. I don't have any answers now (I never proposed to know any alternatives). But I will certainly stand up for an approach that already exists, and I insist that the damage from them is extremely low compared to their benefit. If these categories are vote stacking bait, then the Wikipedia is link spamming bait. We should go after the perpetrators, not the good citizens. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Liberal Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superseded by umbrella nomination --William Allen Simpson 01:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no encyclopedic value, possible votestacking use Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I could support the deletion of all one hundred subcategories (and their subcategories) of Category:Wikipedians by politics, but one by one deletion weakens the encyclopedia by allowing selective bias. GRBerry 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Void this CfD in favor of the above one, without which this one is absurd, just like the Conservative Wikipedians one, below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are many other categories that are worse than this one, but if we agree to delete all political categories than I will support, specifically the Conservative wikipedians below. Vote withdrawn.Gsingh 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories are now nominated for deletion above.-- Drini 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Larix 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Evolution polls

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, unused for months, was described on talk page as "temporary". Warrens 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as name seems vague, otherwise populate and rename. David Kernow 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rock and Roll Musicians For The Political Left

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like some sort of enemies list. Extremely prejudicial. waffle iron ^talk 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly vague, invites speculative inclusions, and cat name implies some sort of soviet monolith.--M @r ē ino 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this based on???--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mareino's thoughts above. --Wisd e n17 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Argh! Kukini 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced POV magnet. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is to be deleted, then it is only fair that the category "Rock Musicians of the Political Right" be deleted as well. - Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.207.247 (talk • contribs) .

It has been nominated as well: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 20#Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right --waffle iron ^talk 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's pointless 132.241.246.111 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of musicians do very deliberately align themselves with left-wing politics - the objections to this category seem to be concerned with "left wing" being some kind of unspeakable concept that it would be libelous to imply anyone had anything to do with. (As a non-American I get the impression that in the USA "left wing" is considered a slur approximately on a par with "rapes babies".) I would actually prefer to populate this category more, by making it and the corresponding Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right into subcategories of Category:Musical activists and moving people from what would then be the parent category. --Bonalaw 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mareino...and Childzy. Postdlf 07:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonalaw. I know he voted keep, but his reasoning is exactly why this needs to be deleted... it'll be a POV nightmare. -M^ask 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. And artists don't fall neatly on the political spectrum anyway. Wasted Time R 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't really repeat the "musical activists" category, in my opinion, since there are also a number of right-leaning musicans (largely country artists like Toby Keith, etc., one would suppose), who could perhaps be referred to as "activists", but are not leftist by any means. There is a difference, also, between an activitst (e.g. someone like, say, Joan Baez, who spends huge amounts of their time involved in political activisim), and a performer who simply lets it be known that they are a registered Democrat. I would however favor changing the name of the article to "musicians from the political left", however, since a number of folk and also soul or R&B artists (Stevie Wonder, etc.) would fit. --Markt3 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Marine life

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Category redirect --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, and a poor means of classifying organisms should have been deleted a while ago, but seemingly never got listed. Stemonitis 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – we have Category:Aquatic organisms. ×Meegs 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete per Meegs.--M @r ē ino 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to redirect per above. David Kernow 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted it to a "soft" redirect, using {{Category redirect}}. --Stemonitis 09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Articles containing fair use images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too broad to be useful, and currently too underpopulated to be effective.--Lkjhgfdsa 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If this gigantic set is ever needed, it can be generated by machine. ×Meegs 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice per Meegs.--M @r ē ino 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Billy Meier Categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among these 2 categories are a grand total of 4 unique pages, 1 of which shouldn't really belong (Immanuel). Of the three that are relevant, 2 of them have the same name as the category itself, and all are linked from the main Billy Meier article. I don't think these categories help much in the way of navigation or sorting. Unless a large amount of Billy Meier-theology related material is expected on Wikipedia, these categories seem hopelessly doomed to tininess. I propose deletion, but if this is seen as too strong, I would recommend as an alternative renaming and combining the categories into something more general, such as "UFOs in Religion." Something like that could conceievably be expanded to other pages and have some breadth. SnowFire 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These topics are nowhere close to meriting categories. Osomec 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Billy Meier category. I agree with the above. I haven't looked at the other category. Bubba73 (talk), 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Osomec. --Wisd e n17 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States state case law

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename subcategories but leave this category the same. For example, Category:California state case law is reundant, it only needs to be Category:California case law. Same with the other states.—Markles 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; "state" helps clarify that these are categories for articles about state court decisions only; otherwise decisions by federal courts sitting in the particular state might be inadvertently included. Postdlf 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Postdlf. Even if redundant, the verbiage is very common and is a useful reminder. ×Meegs 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Postdlf; every state has state and federal courts, and in some instances a federal case can be referred to as "a California case", but not as "a California state case". That's the burden of dual sovereignty! BD2412 T 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In support. I counter your arguments thusly…

A federal case in California would not be a "California case." It would be a "federal case" or a "United States case" or some such thing. I admit that a "United States case" could refer to a case in the United States, not of the United States. But a California case is very clearly a case of California.
It is not "very common" to refer to them as "California state cases." If a category were called "Category:California case law" there's no doubt in my mind what kind of cases they would be.

—Markles 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, my experience is the opposite; most people tend to use the qualifier of "state" because it's confusing otherwise. Perhaps it's a regional thing—where do you practice and/or study law? Postdlf 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about colloquialisms; rather, it's about accuracy. I'll grant that redundancy does not imply inaccuracy, but if the category had originally been called "California case law" would anyone have suggested changing it to add "state"? —Markles 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a non-legal person, I'll just say that at least for me, adding "State" is a useful clarifier and reminder. Even if in law the "State" is technically unnecessary (a proposition I am unqualified to judge), it still is reasonable to add it in a general-use encylopedia. SnowFire 20:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a useful clarifier and reminder, but it is not precise. Compare it to "New York State Governor." That might clarify the position held by George Pataki (Governor of New York) instead of the one held by Kevin M. Warsh (a New Yorker who serves as Governor of the Federal Reserve.—Markles 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Martial Arts Styles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: merge into Category:Martial arts. Option 2: rename as Category:Martial arts styles -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per option1. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:C class destroyers to Category:C class destroyers (1943)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy had several different classes of destroyers called the "C class". This category contains members of the 1943 class, and the category should be renamed to make that clear. TomTheHand 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Low Germanic languages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages. Conscious 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existant term, original research, invention of Wikipedia user. The scientific term, used in all sources and all other Wikipedia editions, is Low German languages. //83 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Accepted term, even by certain linguists, used to avoid confusion and provide more and better understandable information. --

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a single source is provided. The term is not used by any other encyclopedia or established reference work, and not by any other Wikipedia either. The term was invented by a English Wikipedia user on November 12, 2005. Hence, the category is a violation of two Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyway, those insisting on moving all things Low German to "Low Germanic" seems to be a weird sort of Dutch nationalists (just like claiming American is unrelated to English for nationalist purposes). //83 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; Low German article suggests that German and Germanic might be both terms that would be used to mean the same thing.--M@rēino 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Be aware that the same POV pushers have made changes to a large number of articles related to this since November last year. A Wikipedia article cannot be used a reference. Until we have seen other evidence, we must assume that the term was invented last year by a Wikipedia editor.
Keep, possibly rename - When I organized these categories, I went along with the terminology already in place in the articles. However, it was my understanding that "Low German" is (as is cited in this CFD) the name of the family that includes Low Franconian, and that the family that was named "Low German" here in Wikipedia is actually called "Low Saxon". Rename Category:Low German languages to Category:Low Saxon languages, and rename Category:Low Germanic languages to Category:Low German languages or to Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages (more neutral term used by Ethnologue). - Keep in mind that the Dutch distaste of being called "German" and of Germans not being called "Dutch" in English congealed only in recent centuries. Nationalisms and politics aside, it is indisputable that Dutch and Low Saxon are closer to each other than either of them is to Standard German. Also keep in mind that Low Saxon, which is also spoken in some parts of the Netherlands, would be under "Low German" somewhere along the classification tree either way, even if the classification Low Franconian languages weren't also so named. It may be politically correct to say "Low Germanic", but "Low German" is both historically and genetically the more correct term (purely in a linguistic sense, mind you—once again, nationalisms and politics both being set aside). The category structures as they had been set really should be kept intact—if "Low Germanic" is not a valid term, then rename the category, don't delete it. - Gilgamesh 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I like the Gilgamesh's proposition of adopting the ethnologue solution by moving this category to Category:Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages (I'd however prefer the alphabetical ordering of the components, which also corresponds to the ordering by number of active speakers or by number of Ausbausprachen). I've requested the move of the corresponding articles, see Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves. In any case, the articles should keep the same names as the corresponding categories. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually they use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian", but I realize that's splitting hairs. - Gilgamesh 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment It occurred to me that perhaps it really is genuinely more proper to use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" instead of "Low Franconian-Low Saxon", because it's established terminology in the linguistic field. Similarly, we tend to say "Indo-European" or "Tibeto-Burman" rather than "Euro-Indian" or "Burmo-Tibetan". If it is the majority's choice that "Low Franconian-Low Saxon" is more acceptable, then I wouldn't dispute it, and I really don't consider this a dispute now. But please think about it. - Gilgamesh 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as appropriate. I believe what this is referring to, without digging into it too deeply, is Low West-Germanic non-Anglo-Frisian dialects/languages, which variously include Afrikaans, Nederlands, Vlaams, Plattdüütsch, Niederfränkisch, Niedersächsisch, [etc.], [how ever you like to split them up and group them together], possibly Lëtzebürgesch, and a number of now-extinct dialects or languages such as then plattdeutschen Dialects that supplanted the Lechitic Pomeranian language[s]. For now tho, I think it would be entirely appropriate to remove this discussion from CfD and take it to the category talk page where it should have been to begin with... Tom e r ^talk 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Translated in Dutch the differences will be much clearer: Germanic = Germaans, German = Duits, which would make German the languages spoken in Germany, and Germanic the 'Germanic family', which would include German, Dutch, Danish, etc. Bryan 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Politicians of the District of Columbia to Category:District of Columbia politicians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. To correspond to all the other subcategories of Category:American politicians by state. Yes, I know it's not a state, but it should be included here until/unless the higher category's name is corrected. —Markles 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match siblings. ×Meegs 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. ×Meegs 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Markles. DC should follow the same linguistic format as if it were a state. --M @r ē ino 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We just decided this a few weeks ago in the other direction! Stop category thrashing! This is not a state, this is a local government, and follows Category:Local government in the United States. Markles just added it to Category:American politicians by state, solely to create the conflict, and then nominated CfR 5 minutes later. I am very close to thinking this a bad faith nomination. (And Markles should use the official {{cfr2}}, I'm tired of having to fix his entries.) --William Allen Simpson 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I certainly did not do this in bad faith. Creating a category then nominating a similar one for CFR is a regular part of category maintenance and if I did something wrong in Wikipedia procedure, please accept my apologies.—Markles 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the previous discussion concluded that there should be a single cat titled "District of Columbia", not "Washington, D.C." Only you expressed a preference for "Politicians of —" over "— politicians", and you did not give a specific reason. I really believe this is a good-faith nomination. ×Meegs 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that previous discussion, it was 3 in favor and 2 opposed, which was hardly a consensus. It is fair to debate the issue anew. —Markles 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename previous discussion did not reach consensus, and should follow state conventions. -M^ask 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Conservative Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superseded by umbrella nomination - TexasAndroid 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category designed and used to votestack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- survived CfD of 2005 December 18. No evidence presented of "design" or "use" related to votestacking. --William Allen Simpson 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category designed by User:Gator1 during his pre-responsible phase, in defence of banned user User:BigDaddy777. Review recent user-talk contributions of User:Rangeley for use in vote-stacking. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ¿Evidence? > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=59500451#Vote-Stacking.3F -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unless at least Category:Liberal Wikipedians and Category:Moderate Wikipedians are also nominated for deletion, and possibly Category:Leftist Wikipedians, Category:Rightist Wikipedians, Category:Green Wikipedians, Category:Libertarian Wikipedians, and likely many more from Category:Wikipedians by politics. If users are to be allowed to declare their political leanings in this way at all, then we cannot single out just one of these categories and remove it, denying that ability to one segment of the users, while still allowing the ability to others. Either all this type need to go, or they all need to stay. - TexasAndroid 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I support the deletion of all of the subcategories except the ones for small minority views (i.e. "Users who support the Bharatiya Janata Party"). The large ones have no conceivable encyclopedic use. The BJP category might assist in finding someone that can help us researhc the BJP. This is not necessary for conservatives. When I get home and have access to AWB, I will do a mass nomination. I look foward to your strong and continued support to make an encyclopedia as opposed to argue about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Removing all one hundred categories and user boxes may force users to remain more anonymous and have blander user pages, but I guarantee you that it will encourage external-Wikipedia organizations that can effectively vote-stack and edit war unopposed and unmonitored by interested Wikipedians, if it is not already being done. DavidBailey 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- bad faith nomination. --Facto 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please retract your personal attack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no personal attack imo. Osomec 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Larix 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Smells like a bad faith nomination. While there has recently been a WP:SPAM to members of the category, I don't believe categories, project pages, userboxes, etc... should be deleted because of an individual's action - the individual should suffer the consequences. I could support the deletion of all one hundred subcategories (and their subcategories) of Category:Wikipedians by politics, but one by one deletion weakens the encyclopedia by allowing selective bias. GRBerry 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories But I've seen you've supported already the group CFD -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I support the deletion of all of the subcategories except the ones for small minority views (i.e. "Users who support the Bharatiya Janata Party"). The large ones have no conceivable encyclopedic use. The BJP category might assist in finding someone that can help us researhc the BJP. This is not necessary for conservatives. When I get home and have access to AWB, I will do a mass nomination. I look foward to your strong and continued support to make an encyclopedia as opposed to argue about politics. Please retract your personal attack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no personal attack imo. Osomec 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't be able to support keeping those for "small minority views". That in itself introduces selective bias. I'm not a regular at CFD (spotted this on Recent Changes), so I don't know what the etiquette here is when a parent is deleted, do all the kids go to? If so, then just nominate Category:Wikipedians by politics. Otherwise, I think we need a separate and visible discussion about eliminating all of them as a group. GRBerry 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is encyclopedic value to the rare member of the small minority view - in that they can assist us in finding sources related to their view. There is no encyclopedic value to "conservatives." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That could be accomplished just by posting on the talk page of the article about the small minority party. The use of the category is irrelevant to the size of the group. GRBerry 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- JungleCat 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? CFD is not a vote. -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They should all go, but selective nominations like this are out of order. Osomec 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They all have to go at once. I can't support the deletion of Category:Conservative Wikipedians while Category:Liberal Wikipedians just sits there. It's true that neither has any encyclopedic value, but they have to be nominated together - I think all categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics should go. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Then rescind your vote, and nominate them all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What vote? ...and who said it had to happen today? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing with you in two places gets confusing. My deepest apologies on the mix up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Serves me right for arguing the same issue from two perspectives at the same time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IF you have a problem with these groups, they should all be deleted, pretty selective choice. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per GRBerry. DavidBailey 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take that to mean "No to selective nominations but yes if applied to all categories (as GrBerry has done) ?-- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, reserving the right to change vote if ALL are nominated, per GTBacchus.--M @r ē ino 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories So, would you reconsider changing your opinion? -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment Will the Category:Wikipedians by religion and sub-cats also be targeted for deletion? Will it stop at politics? What about Category:Wikipedians by philosophy? Can these be used to votestack? Sorry for asking dumb questions ;-) JungleCat 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am focusing on politics. You can feel free to deal with other categories used to votestack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, all of them or none of them. We cant pick and choose, and if you were truly worried about "vote stacking" (votes dont ever matter by the way) then you would target all groups, not merely this. Rangeley 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per GTBacchus et al., most of Category:Wikipedians by politics should be deleted as non-encyclopedic, as promoting categorization irrelevant to editing, and as potential vote-stacking/edit-warring tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireplace (talk • contribs) 18:33, June 19, 2006 (UTC).
Oppose -- there is no such thing as vote-stacking, so vote-stacking is not possible -- we seek consensus. We have all sorts of categories on Wikipedia -- this seems to be a hate-filled focus on Conservatives, which seems to happen daily, even among Admins. Morton Devonshire^Yo
This is a fallacy. "Vote-stacking" is a misnomer for a disruptive activity that impedes the finding of consensus. Call it what you will; it's real, and it's been done with this category twice in the past week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories are now nominated for deletion above. GRBerry 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.