Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 16

3901:. For utility: it has long been established that things like userboxen serve to foster friendships and working relationships on an increasingly vast and bureaucratic project by helping editors find others whom they might not otherwise be aware of and with whom they have common interests, skills, or focusses; in this case the category led to my becoming aware of LessHeard vanU, and I was glad to do so and regard this as the opposite of detrimental to Knowledge (XXG). For what to do: I believe other user-space categories to which objections of frivolity were raised were recently dealt with by the creation of a parent category, such as Wikipedians by declared interest or Wikipedian fun categories, to prevent the manifestation of the categories in lists of red-linked categories, which was clogging clean-up channels. That is the solution I would have advocated if I'd been sure how to cogently propose it. So I suggest it be implemented for these categories. 308:

by a club of less than 20 total members, with pageant participation at maybe 7, count? Back to Blackburn, the competition she won is not mention in the article on Laurel, Mississippi. I just updated the article on Laurel, Mississippi with some demographic data from the 2010 census. That is a set of updates that is still quite lacking. Most articles have the raw population number, but not racial breakdown data or other more exact data, which we have basically all of for the 2000 census. My google search showed up no mentions of the festival that Blackburn was crowned queen of. What I do now is that prior to about 1980 there were a lot more titles in the US for local beauty queens than there are today.

3784:- To me, these categories are little unobtrusive reminders that the mentioned editors were once here. No harm done. Brings to mind those little collections of plastic flowers we sometimes see along the highway to commemorate someones passing and venerate that they once existed and touched others. We, as a community of faceless strangers that communicate endlessly, are drawn to some and spurn others. When I see those roadside honorifics I know that in someones eyes that person was special. Same here. ― 4067:. The value of celebrating these editors is conceded even by those wishing to delete the categories. But categories are aids to navigation, and I find a certain comfort in knowing I can quickly use the categories to find other like-minded Wikipedians. In an online environment that too often depersonalises the individual, having a set of pointers to others who also value the person is not something to be tossed away lightly in service of technological convenience. -- 354:

say. However Harold is also the one person here who is probably not notable as a politician. She has lost at least once in a run for a primary nomination to congress. Getting the Republican Nomination for Illinois Secretary of State will not make her notable as a politician. Getting elected secretary of state of Illinois will make her notable, and might happen, but even then it would be a bit much to say it directly ties into her role in beauty pageants.

866: 374:

a politician. With actor/politicians some build on the fame from one to propel themselves into a career as the other. This is almost never the case here. Both because the beauty pageant circuit is topped out in the mid-20s, often decades before entry into politics, and because some of these people (such as Mrs. Palin), were many levels below notable as beauty pageant figures.

2859:-- On rereading the main article, perhaps this is only awarded to the most distinguished diplomats. I had bought this was another award given to foreign heads of state (etc.). Awards by a state to its own citizens are likely to be evidence of notability, unless they are given too liberally (like the German Knight's Cross and British MBE. 1583:

There might be Wiki-related scenarios were any number of things related to their computer are relevant. That doesn't mean keeping a grouping of such users with those things in common is appropriate for Knowledge (XXG), implying said grouping provides a collaborative benefit. I believe you are making

4014:

Wow, we get insulted because we're holding people to rules this very wiki made for itself? How authoritarian! I really have to ask who's wasting whose time here when this is all voluntary and nothing's keeping you or anyone else from doing something else after chiming in here. Petty slaps like "this

3950:

Benefits of categories: (a) Makes me happy. (b) Makes LHvU, Ched, etc. feel appreciated, and more likely to come back. (c) Promotes collegiality with others who also have these categories on their user page. (d) Doesn't make me feel like we're relentlessly sucking every last ounce of humanity out of

3918:

There are ways of memorializing users' contributions that don't create categories which are supposed to exist on the basis of finding users who possess one capability or another. These don't tell us anything about an editor's skillset or probable editing patterns. Also, are some of these Keep !votes

3833:

is clearly telling a falsehood. But this is The Real Thing, and to prove I'm going to go through LHvU's many fine contributions to see if he left us nuggets of wisdom. Then I'm going to call up the category members and we'll work on working on those nuggets, thereby disproving your argument once and

1502:

per my rationale in the previous discussion: "When all's said and done, e-mail is e-mail. One might be interested in e-mailing a particular user, and that's why the userpage and "E-mail this user" function exist, but there's little value in a category that groups users by the e-mail client that they

373:

In almost all if not all of these cases, having previously competed in a beauty pageant is not at all defining to becoming a politician. It is not like Mrs. Palin leveraged her loss in the Miss Alaska USA pageant into being mayor, or Jennifer Granholm leveraged her role in beauty pageants into being

307:

Possibly the added problem, at least this category does not use the term "beauty queen". I guess Blackburn probably qualifies, see below, but do we really think that every winner of a lot town queen title becomes a "beauty queen". Actually do some of the people I know elected "Belle of the Y" at BYU

4275:

It resulted in no consensus, defaulting to keep our current guideline. It's a shame they won't respect it. As for an early withdrawal, I see no point in letting this continue unless we had an admin close as delete, forcing a deletion review so perhaps we could have a real discussion as to if it's

1662:

Categories do not imply active interest in editing in certain topic areas. The most potential these have is to offer irrelevant tech support. Not terribly useful considering Knowledge (XXG) itself doesn't actually use an email client of any sort; the best you can say is it does allow users to email

189:

articles and studies have been done on the rise of beauty pageant queens into politics, so it is clearly an interesting subject. Also Michele Bachmann now has sources about her participation in the beauty pageant world, whilst Erika Harold is likely to be the Republican nominee for Attorney General

4044:

Iridescent's cool, and I wouldn't take offense. I don't think he meant to insult; rather, I would guess he was frustrated because one of the categories was discussed earlier this year. ... Not to say that I agree with his point, though, because you're right, of course, that participation is wholly

3824:

in plain violation of USERCAT (or USERDOG, for that matter), and you know this cause you feel the need to argue this with the lame old excuse that this does not lead to content improvement. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is an invitation for someone to find a group of like-minded people to pick up on

353:

Erika Harold is as far as I know the only person among these who is notable as a beauty pageant winner. She was Miss America, and added to her fame by speaking her own mind on moral issues instead of being the talking head for the Miss America organization and just parrotting what it wanted her to

4233:

Well, I'm okay with that, I suppose. Anyone who tries to get rid of these categories in future certainly has my full support, but I'm not passionate enough to continue to make noise over here about it. We certainly have many problematic user categories, and it might be worth having an RFC on the

391:

This category seems to draw heavily from an article written in the Hill back in 2008. On Marsha Blackburn we learn "Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was the Oil Festival Queen in Laurel, Miss., in 1969, if she remembers the year correctly." So even a focused on congress publication did not bother

327:

It's debatable exactly what one would have to do with the other, and whether both would contribute to a subject's notability (e.g. "Subject is famous for having a beauty pageant career prior to a political one that is just as noteworthy" or "This notable politician just happened to have a beauty

4572:

Oops, I read this wrong, the "opted-out" category is about MassMessage, which is a different process from bots dropping messages on users' pages. As I understand it (and I don't understand it well) the MassMessage extension doesn't parse users' pages when it posts, so a template solution isn't

3642:

I, too, wish some of these editors would return, and I do not begrudge any editor the right to express this type of wish on their user page or the departed user's talk page. However, categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices, and there is no value in creating multiple,

1083:

With all but one sportsperson tagged from Kiribati, this category is still well undersized for a stub category. But if combined back with the rest of the stub biography articles for this country, would make a small, but well populated stub category. Propose deleting this category. Keep all

3825:

the tantalizing loose threads LHvU left in their wisdom, knowing that one day it would unify a group of editors in serious article improvement. I understand if you, nominator, in your ongoing crusade against such categories, want to nominate "Category:Users who are sheep"--after all, there

1641:

of pages, not primarily a means of providing information about an individual user. Presumably, if a user is seeking help with "loading attachments, blocking messages ..., sorting emails", etc., those rendering assistance could/would just ask what email client the user happens to use. --

3987:

there are drawbacks to keeping them, but per Floq above, in the particular situations in this case there's at least a potential benefit, and the only potential downside is that occasionally Defenders Of The Wiki insist on wasting everyone's time having this same conversation yet

4211:

will agree to indulge me. By the way, I must admit that I'm a little disappointed by the level-headedness of those arguing to "keep" above and somewhat hurt that I didn't merit the same level of vitriol VegaDark received in February's discussion. Anyway, I'm off to spawn

3745:

deleted. Note: is Bishzilla's single only userpage category, because of value attached to it. Such categories facilitate collaboration, in view of fact that users are not robots, and warm feeling as well as jocularity between them is good for project. Pinging the little

3675:, these set a horrible precedent for allowing creation of a category like this for any user. I also want to emphasize that a category containing useful information about a user does not necessarily mean it is appropriate for a category. A category implies the 3679:

of such users provides some benefit to the encyclopedia. Even if this did not violate our guidelines, and even if I were to concede that knowing which people wished certain users would come back were useful information to have, how on earth would a

2818:

I see both this award and your possibly hypothetical example as being similar career awards but you obviously draw a distinction. Since it's an award for merit, why would being voted Best Californian Pastry Chef of 2017 not be defining from your

4463:

if the bot's function(s) can be modified to search for templates rather than user categories to accomplish its goal. User categories are not an ideal way to be searching for this type of information on a particular user's page. Otherwise,

4551:

on the BracketBot category: while it is possible to pass a list of bots to deny using nobots, and thus possible for the template to populate a series of "opted out of nnnBot" categories, I don't see why that would be useful.

4441:. On the difference between "who have opted out" versus "who opt out", I prefer the latter form because it is active, shorter, and more direct. Small tweaks would be required to update the message delivery logic used by 1268:

How is it helpful to categorize users "loosely affiliated" with a university? This sets horrendous precedent, not only for that reason, but due to the "from" naming convention that makes no sense as well. Please review

2667:

It seems to be awarded for careers successfully organizing conferences, setting up a job program in a foreign embassy, economic negotiations and the like so not automatic but nothing outside the normal duties of an

229:

Certainly this combination exists and maybe a few have used the fame to cross over. An article on the phenomenon would be a better place to start since, right now, this just looks like a random overlap category.

1480: 211:

intersection of two unrelated occupations. We do not create "people who happen to be both X and Y" categories for every combination of X and Y that can be found to include more than two or three people.

529:. As the creator, I hadn't appreciated there was already an English-language version of this category, so this is a no brainer. Does it even need discussion? Recommend speedy close and merge. -- 4064: 3660: 42: 37: 4084:– the case for keeping made eloquently above is much more convincing than that for delete. I am not sure why so much time and effort is being devoted to the categorisation of user pages. 1637:

Granted, there might be wiki-related scenarios where email client is relevant, but how does this category factor into those scenarios? Reiterating VegaDark's point above, a category is a

3577: 1324: 1210: 392:

checking the details. Blackburn was a businesswoman before entering congress. She in no way, shape, means or form propelled her being a beauty queen directly to being a politician.

4234:

issue to determine just what the hell these bloody things are even for. I'm dismayed that the rules are plain as day but we so gladly disregard them in cases like this because "

4412: 3500: 1538:

I'm not sure I'm clear as to what you are getting at. Are you suggesting Knowledge (XXG) should be a forum for someone to ask for assistance regarding their e-mail client?

4171:

In fact, the more I read of the last time a category like this was discussed, the more it seems to me a bizarre personality cult seems to form around preferred users. Ew.

3602: 3568: 3466: 2782:

As I have said before, we disagree over what is defining. Being voted Best Californian Pastry Chef of 2017 is not defining. Receiving an award for merit from your country

2649:. Appears to be awarded for merit and not to just be an award for long service. If anyone can provide any evidence that it is not awarded for merit then please do so. -- 3534: 3684:

of such users translate to content being improved on the encyclopedia? This is the type of information someone should display on their userpage, not a user category.

1560:

for general inquiries. But there may well be wiki-related scenarios where email client is relevant, either for creating emails or for receiving them. All the best:

1610:

Relating to their Wiki-work - for example loading attachments, blocking messages from certain users, sorting emails from wiki links or from mailing lists, emailing

1239:

One of the members says " I am loosely affiliated with the Harvard Museum of Natural History" - I'm not sure that those attending Harvard currently can claim it as

154:

The category as it exists is synthesis. Some of the entrants are nationally-prominent politicians with no sourcing as to their participation in beauty pageants (

2790:

category for such awards. To delete some and not others would surely discriminate against countries with honours systems that are less known internationally. --

4313: 4257: 4186: 4157: 4117: 4030: 3934: 3260: 3072: 1678: 343: 2632:-- These awards (here effectively long service awards) are a category menace. We have OCAWARD to prevent the category clutter that AWARDS like these cause. 1311:

per nom, as duplicative, after removing the user (Bard Cadarn) who merely expresses a loose affiliation with the university (to avoid miscategorization). --

1053: 3053:

as nominated. Categories like this one raise a disturbing question in my mind - if you don't identify as being part of this category, does that mean you

4015:

discussion is a waste of time" and calling people "Category Police" only add to the stereotypical picture of a Wikipedian who overreacts to everything.

21: 2973: 4238:", even though focusing on issues like these by no means precludes our ability to work on others. It's nice to know Knowledge (XXG) is a place where 2432:

is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --

2276:

is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --

2120:

is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --

1956:

is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --

1294:

An editor incorrectly placing this category is not a grounds for keeping. There is no credible definition of "loosely affiliated" with a university.

4421: 2965: 3517: 4408: 3619: 3585: 3509: 3483: 3445: 2686:

ambassador or just for length of service then it's awarded for merit. Just like the OBE or Légion d'honneur. And we categorise such awards. --

1044: 3551: 2956: 2607: 17: 4425: 4294:

I think we need an RFC to decide what user categories in general are for, joke or otherwise. But I suppose with that, the three of us hereby

3611: 3475: 3437: 3543: 2429: 2369: 2273: 2213: 2117: 2049: 1953: 1893: 1108: 1004: 689:

Greatly undersized for a stub category, and with no more stubs to draw from. Propose deleting the category and upmerging the templates to

3428: 2525: 1483:

with unanimous support for deletion. It does not help the encyclopedia in any way to know what e-mail client a particular person uses.

2558:

for that service seems redundant. Of the 14 biography articles in this category, 10 don't mention the award at all, 3 only in passing (

132: 124: 296: 173: 328:

pageant career that may or may not be notable on its own"). I find it very unlikely too many could be given the former description.

4272: 2045: 1663:

each other directly, where addresses have been provided... and even then, it's not a requirement, so it's not guaranteed to work.

115: 4583: 4558: 2575: 2209: 1085: 1000: 282: 4442: 3805: 1061: 774:

which would be the logical target for any recategorising of articles - and all of these articles are already in that category.

2365: 1019:

please do not propose or support "deletion" unless you actually want the members to be removed from the parent hierarchies. –

4203:- Obviously, I was unaware of the recent discussion in February 2017, so I'd prefer to just withdraw this nom as Too Soon if 1889: 3142: 2933: 1867: 3411:, with the consent of all who argued to delete, as Too Soon after the (relatively) recent discussion in February 2017. -- 1462: 1454: 840: 717: 626: 3274: 2728: 4208: 892: 844: 771: 721: 659: 630: 4610: 4588: 4563: 4506: 4494: 4477: 4453: 4438: 4400: 4372: 4344: 4318: 4285: 4262: 4224: 4191: 4162: 4122: 4093: 4076: 4049: 4035: 4009: 3992: 3973: 3939: 3910: 3887: 3865: 3843: 3799: 3775: 3725: 3693: 3651: 3644: 3415: 3396: 3368: 3348: 3331: 3312: 3265: 3237: 3216: 3156: 3125: 3097: 3077: 3045: 3029: 3006: 2999: 2947: 2916: 2888: 2868: 2842: 2828: 2813: 2799: 2777: 2750: 2713: 2695: 2677: 2658: 2641: 2619: 2591: 2517: 2489: 2461: 2441: 2421: 2396: 2357: 2333: 2305: 2285: 2265: 2240: 2201: 2177: 2149: 2129: 2109: 2080: 2037: 2013: 1985: 1965: 1945: 1920: 1881: 1850: 1822: 1802: 1760: 1731: 1703: 1683: 1646: 1625: 1601: 1571: 1547: 1526: 1507: 1492: 1446: 1419: 1391: 1367: 1354: 1336: 1315: 1303: 1282: 1256: 1229: 1206: 1198: 1171: 1143: 1123: 1097: 1031: 984: 956: 934: 917: 899: 859: 821: 807: 790: 765: 740: 702: 637: 606: 578: 558: 538: 519: 472: 449: 421: 401: 383: 363: 348: 317: 302: 273: 256: 239: 221: 199: 179: 106: 78: 4213: 3174: 2551: 1790: 285:. It has different people listed but the same problems. I'll wait for this to close before nominating that at AfD. 3820:

per ILIKEIT and also per I don't get the point of removing something that some people find useful. Nominator, it is

3327: 3233: 2824: 2709: 2673: 2615: 2587: 1752: 1438: 1190: 1023: 851: 667: 650: 235: 4276:

okay for a group of editors to just decide they don't want to follow a guideline, but that doesn't sound likely.

3719: 3661:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back‎

1619: 1565: 1520: 1250: 397: 379: 359: 313: 2415: 2259: 2103: 1939: 2995: 2544: 775: 753: 725: 2864: 2637: 1768: 2700:

Just providing background information about the award. (We continue to respectfully disagree about whether

2536: 1744: 3182: 3165: 3152: 2943: 2809: 2773: 2550:

Being a diplomat or high ranking official for the Philippines is absolutely defining which is why we have

2437: 2353: 2281: 2197: 2125: 2033: 1961: 1877: 1798: 1772: 1332: 1299: 913: 836: 817: 761: 749: 713: 690: 622: 290: 269: 167: 4606: 4368: 4340: 4242:

but we can't even follow our own rules about user categories because somebody gets offended when we do.

3969: 3906: 3830: 3392: 3364: 3323: 3291: 3229: 3121: 3093: 2912: 2884: 2820: 2705: 2669: 2611: 2583: 2563: 2485: 2457: 2329: 2301: 2173: 2145: 2009: 1981: 1846: 1818: 1749: 1727: 1699: 1435: 1415: 1387: 1187: 1167: 1139: 1020: 980: 952: 888: 848: 602: 574: 445: 417: 231: 74: 3204: 2833:

Because there's a clear difference between a localised and specialised prize and a national honour! --

2433: 2407: 2380: 2277: 2251: 2224: 2121: 2091: 2060: 1957: 1931: 1904: 1786: 247:

as per JimmyJoe87. Main articles can be instead sourced and the category will not remain empty either.

208: 3829:

no users who are sheep (think about it--how would sheep type on a keyboard or operate a tablet?), and

484: 3964:

It seems self-evident that we should not get rid of something with an infinite benefit/cost ratio. --

3738: 3716: 3344: 3212: 2838: 2795: 2691: 2654: 1616: 1562: 1517: 1479:

as categories that do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Similar categories were discussed

1247: 534: 393: 375: 355: 309: 195: 4135: 3672: 3017: 2765: 2540: 2383:. The single game here should be in the suggested category as well as the base Goosebumps category. 1557: 1476: 1270: 3878:--force of habit; since you were the first one to show up here I probably missed the line break... 3813: 3758: 3742: 2601: 2411: 2255: 2099: 2067:

considering 2 of the games are entitled Nancy Drew. Should be upmerged into all parent categories.

1935: 770:

Actually, there is. "Mahoran people" simply means people from Mayotte. There's already a populated

2761: 2095: 2064: 1789:, just one article in it. No need to merge to the second parent because the article is already in 4473: 4395: 4281: 4235: 3861: 3689: 3307: 3025: 2860: 2745: 2633: 2567: 2512: 2098:

is a red herring as a read of the actual pages will show they were Hardy Boys crossover games. -

1597: 1543: 1488: 1350: 1278: 1225: 1117: 928: 801: 784: 734: 552: 101: 4295: 4239: 4102:

Because user categories serve a specific purpose and categories like these render them useless.

4605:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4450: 4339:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4221: 4046: 4006: 3853: 3794: 3648: 3412: 3363:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3148: 3092:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3003: 2939: 2883:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2805: 2769: 2456:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2390: 2349: 2300:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2234: 2193: 2144:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2074: 2029: 1980:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1914: 1873: 1817:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1794: 1698:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1643: 1592:

of such users (by way of a category) is therefore somehow appropriate or necessary. It isn't.

1504: 1386:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1364: 1328: 1312: 1295: 1138:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

951:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

909: 896: 882: 813: 757: 634: 573:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

469: 416:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

286: 265: 217: 163: 4367:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3985:

when the categories are redlinked or exist and are in turns subcategories of other categories

3391:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3120:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2911:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2484:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2328:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2172:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2008:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1845:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1726:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1414:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1166:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

979:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

601:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

505: 444:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4490: 3983:, and I wish the self-appointed Category Police would find a better use of their time. Yes, 3965: 3902: 3883: 3839: 3747: 3711: 1093: 698: 515: 488: 252: 155: 812:

I see, in that case deleting the category and upmerging the template is sufficient indeed.

465: 4578: 4553: 4530: 4520: 4446: 4089: 4072: 4002: 3989: 3340: 3287: 3208: 2834: 2791: 2687: 2650: 530: 191: 2410:

does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. -

2254:

does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. -

1934:

does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. -

2998:, lest we have a similar remembrance category for every mass killing, and this category 1220:

Seems to be a misnamed and duplicate category of the properly named alma mater version.

4536:

is not a reliable method to find users who opt out, since nobots is just a wrapper for

4217: 4063:: none of the reasons for keeping these categories have lessened in strength since the 3809: 3751: 3699: 2094:

does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is.

724:

has fewer than 40 articles. BTW, if this category goes, them the otherwise unpopulated

264:

as a trivial intersection. What follows next, farmer-politicians, manager-politicians?

4575:

if it's technically possible to change the opt-out category that MassMessage looks for

4540: 4469: 4388: 4277: 4204: 3857: 3685: 3643:

sparsely populated category groupings for individual users. These categories plainly

3300: 3021: 2786:

defining. Taking your opinion to its logical conclusion, we should presumably delete

2738: 2505: 1614:

lists, avoiding vacation spam, email interfaces to tools lab services. All the best:

1593: 1539: 1484: 1346: 1274: 1221: 1112: 1014: 923: 878: 796: 779: 729: 547: 94: 4573:

possible unless it's that the template adds this category. So my !vote is to rename

4502:

per nom, at least to fix hyphen blunder, unless VegaDark's suggestion proves better

3207:(3 articles), unlikely to grow much larger. Even a navbox would be hard to justify. 847:. I don't see a justification for removing the members from any of those parents. – 3785: 3703: 3039: 2579: 2555: 2386: 2230: 2227:, the articles in this category should be upmerged into all the parent categories. 2070: 1910: 1007:(or its sub-cats by sport), as this is the desired result, not deletion as stated. 213: 159: 3816:

so he knows he's not forgotten. Nominator, bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.

4486: 3879: 3835: 3707: 1089: 1010: 874: 694: 511: 248: 4085: 4068: 3804:

Thank you Rich. This was a good reminder to check if I was still listed under

2571: 2559: 1241: 4503: 4361: