Category talk:Wikipedians

message: Hi. Would someone please respond to the objections to your cat project? Maurreen (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections

message: This page has gone all foobar, no sub categories, no lisiting of users.--Pfafrich 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOOBAR

message: I would love to know what the broad demographics are of the wiki community Steers82 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Some of the categorisations of Wikipedians, with all due respect, may seem silly or even narcissistic, and I think it wise to ask  what purpose categorisation   serves. I can see  a number of reasons for categorisation of our userpages, and one of the most important is, surely, that people can check the sources that a particular Wikipedian is likely to have used. It is for this reason that I have added a category named below. 
:Category: Wikipedians by access to sources and references
If you click on this, you will see several categories which, to me, would serve to support the credibility of an individual Wikipedian. In my view, the more  Wikipedians who can put themselves in the subcategories listed there, the better! ACEO 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I have added one of our newest categories

message: I'd like to add scuba as a category.  Can I / should I do this?  raining_girl 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scuba diving

message: A recent deletion review over the deletion of :Category:Wikipedians by active status, :Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active and :Category:Wikipedians who are partially active suggested that more discussion was needed about the potential utility of such categories.  That discussion is taking place now at this link.  All opinions are welcome.  Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion debate about user categories by status 

message: Dear friends,
It happens that wikimedians make a longer wikibreak and / or eaven a sabatical year. Please let me know if you plan such subcategories. It should be possible to add "estimated" or "past" timeintervals. It makes sense to have them also at commons:category:user. Best regards ·‎Gangleri·T·m: Th·T·email me·‎ 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All "Wikipedians by activity status" categories have been deleted over the past 6-12 months... While it is useful to know the activity status of individual editors, there is no real reason to browse through a category to specifically seek out inactive editors. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories related to [[project:wikibreak|wikibreak]] and / or [[sabatical|sabatical]] year 

message: Can a podcasting category be created? --Mdieke (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Podcasting

message: How about putting up a List of oldest Wikipedian editors?-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Wikipedians 

message: *meta:Wikipedians who don't like to be categorised ;) -- œ™ 05:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Recently it was brought to my attention that  has been nominating multiple branches of this tree for deletion with the rationale of "I fail to see how these categories are relevant to encyclopedia-building." The categories nominated (some already deleted, others still up for discussion) that I'm aware of are:
* WP:CfD:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows (nominated by , closed by )
** WP:DRv:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows
** WP:CfD:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows (Which should be closed as speedy keep as it appears, even if unintentional, to be forum shopping)
* WP:CfD:Wikipedians by gender and subcats
* WP:CfD:Wikipedians by profession
The question here is, should these categories that are used to build the community, develop WikiProjects, develop & implement software (like WP:HUGGLE or WP:SNUGGLE or WP:STiki) and WP:userscripts & WP:Gadgets (like WP:AFCH or WP:TWINKLE), and find experts on certain subjects (because certainly they know where reliable sources and peer reviewed journals on the topics in their fields can be found) be kept or deleted?
=== Survey ===
* Keep These categories are maintenance categories used by various WP:WikiProjects that exist and potential new projects that are trying to find the best way to encourage new user participation, as it helps them see what is available for users and what demographics could be improved. Technical 13 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I do agree with John Pack Lambert above - certain of such categories are pointless and don't do much to foster community feelings. The more general ones (e.g. who uses which operating system, for example) provide editors with the ability to understand each other better, others that are too specific aren't of much help. LazyBastardGuy 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "keep" with respect to the ones immediately listed; I see these particular entries as having great potential. However, others not listed may or may not have the same value or potential, and should therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis. LazyBastardGuy 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Keep - as a sometime proposer of a self referencing history inside wikipedia itself, two things - keep, and CFD is the last place to go, the usual suspects in that dark corner are focussed upon totally different aspects of category problems - definitely not what this category is about, also I disagree quite wholeheartedly with Lambert - I see every reason for considering as a group - case by case and CFD is a path this group should not have to have imposed upon it sats 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia 

message: * Keep These categories are maintenance categories used by various WP:WikiProjects that exist and potential new projects that are trying to find the best way to encourage new user participation, as it helps them see what is available for users and what demographics could be improved. Technical 13 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I do agree with John Pack Lambert above - certain of such categories are pointless and don't do much to foster community feelings. The more general ones (e.g. who uses which operating system, for example) provide editors with the ability to understand each other better, others that are too specific aren't of much help. LazyBastardGuy 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "keep" with respect to the ones immediately listed; I see these particular entries as having great potential. However, others not listed may or may not have the same value or potential, and should therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis. LazyBastardGuy 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Keep - as a sometime proposer of a self referencing history inside wikipedia itself, two things - keep, and CFD is the last place to go, the usual suspects in that dark corner are focussed upon totally different aspects of category problems - definitely not what this category is about, also I disagree quite wholeheartedly with Lambert - I see every reason for considering as a group - case by case and CFD is a path this group should not have to have imposed upon it sats 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: *Comment. This RFC is an abuse of process; it is a form of forum-shopping. It is not a general discussion about user categories, or even a discussion about some particular type or style of them. Instead it conflates several different CFDs in which very different arguments are being made, and seeks to create a new venue for some sort of super-vote. That serves no useful purpose other than to disrupt consensus-formation, and it would be much better to have simply posted a few links to the relevant CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded discussion 

message: It's kind of interesting to see lists of Wikipedians by article count or other factors, but I'd really love to see a list of the Top 1000 or Top 5000 Wikipedians by the length of time the Editor has been active on Wikipedia. 
I know that I've seen a few user pages with Infoboxes that say an Editor has been active 8 or 9 years and one that had 10 years. But I came across an active Editor that joined in 2001! I think that 12 years of activity is notable and I was wondering if accounts had some numerical assignment and a list could be made of the earliest accounts on Wikipedia. Is there a program or bot that can put this together? Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just discovered these out-of-date pages, like Wikipedians in order of arrival, 2001, but it was created by people adding their names on to the list. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:ListUsers has an option to sort by date of account creation. It's not perfect, but I think it might provide most of the information you're seeking. If you're looking for more information, you could try also asking at WP:BOTREQ, WP:VPT, or Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians by length of activity