Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 18

Okay, this I can see the point of, however it subdivides 'pedians into "baby boomers" "millenials", "gen X / gen Y" and "teenagers", which is a pretty weird scheme. Propose renaming all of it to "Wikipedians by birth year" (or by decade, I suppose). Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC) (given the way this vote is headed, I would have no objection to deleting them) Radiant_>|< 10:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all A waste of scarce server resources. Wikipedia is not a social club. CalJW 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and other useless and distracting categorisation listed above. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Check out the CfD talk page so we can make some guidelines regarding deleting wikipedians categories. -Seth Mahoney 01:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The scheme makes sense from a pop-culture standpoint, but it would be better to use the suggested "by decade" scheme. Courtland 02:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is painfully stupid. Nandesuka 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename on basis of decade. Do not delete; what's the harm? CDThieme 05:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all but Category:Millennial Wikipedians and Category:Teenage Wikipedians. See Generations (book) and Generation#Related_articles. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:03:24 Z
  • Why not those, specifically? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like most of the Wikipedian cats, but this one is pointless. ∞Who?¿? 07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Who. Jonathunder 02:07, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
• Delete all Irrelevant. Osomec 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The subcats that aren't empty were not tagged for deletion, so I'm keeping them open for a few more days. --Kbdank71 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians
  • Category:Millennial Wikipedians
• Keep. I don't care if this is refactored, but I have put Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians on my own page; I think it can at times be useful, because there is certain information where generation is the key to tracking down a person liable to know. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe further user categorization can't be anything but helpful to the community at large. I know that I've encountered other young Wikipedians through the category. I agree with Jmabel's observations. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• [[[Keep]]. BlankVerse ∅ 10:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Kbdank71 13:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What Jmabel said. -JCarriker 19:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jmabel. If deleted, a "Wikipedians by birth decade" or similar scheme would be really nice. Even if it strikes you as useless, where's the harm if people want to put it on their page? These are in use. ~~ N (t/c) 21:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to specific decades. With just "Millenial Wikipedians" or "Teenage Wikipedians" there might be confusion with Wikipedians of the year 3000, for example. --Maru 21:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably, we should have removed ourselves from the list by then. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutralish - Since wikipedians by generation was deleted, I don't see a use in having these anymore. I would agree with a system by decade instead of this, but I don't see any harm in it. Wikipedians in the year 3000? We have 995 years to fix that. ;) --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at most change the schema. It may be useful for an user to classify himself as a certain age group. Yes, it does create server load, but if the problem is only this, we could replace it with a list instead of a category. (And there are much dumber categories which waste as much or more server load.) As for the schemata, I personally like more the current one, but I wouldn't object to change to one organized by decades if this is what most people want.--Army1987 22:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my vote at #Category:Mathematician Wikipedians. ~~ N (t/c) 22:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and organize by decade. --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Category:Millennial Wikipedians as per my vote - User:Vaikunda Raja:Vaikunda Raja
• Keep. I think changing to a decade system is a good idea, but I also think that e.g. Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians is valuable as well. Maybe there should be some templates that transform a given year into one or two categories, one being the decade and the other (if applicable) being the qualitative category (assuming a user wants to be so categorized). I'm only beginning to learn about templates, but I bet it would take dozens of them to implement. But then, so does the Babel project. Is this also worth the resources? Hmm, anyone who doesn't think this is crazy (it probably is) please comment on my talk page. Ddawson 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is no harm in this category. Meanwhile to answer the agruement about Wikipedians in the year 3000, I imagine by then we'll have a better name for the generation than "Millenial Generation," since that seems to come in retrospect. I think it's worth keeping because it matches up with the article then. Also, I vote this way on an altered interpreation of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist. Mred64 05:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More egotistical, cliquish, adolescent and age-ist nonsense. 12.73.198.218 03:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insert non-formatted text here