Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User

message: After reading the discussion above (again), I think we should fall back a bit and re-group. Though we have a speedy section on the UCFD page, it really doesn't get used much, because (though we've discussed it several times in the past), no one is really sure what should be listed there.
I've struck out U4, since it's the one that seems to evoke the most concerns. It can always be part of some future discussion.
The following 2 are obvious:
* Any category intended for Wikipedians that has no indication it is a Wikipedian category can be speedy renamed. "Indications" include, but are not limited to: "Wikipedians", "WikiProject", or a name of a Wikipedia-specific organization or grouping.
* User categories using "users" may be speedily renamed to replace "users" with "Wikipedians", except in the case of Babel-specific user categories.
In addition to these, there have been a few discussions that have had consistant results: Sporting group fans; alma mater cats; languages to default to their iso code; -N (native) used on any cats except spoken languages should be deleted; all zero level cats except english should be deleted.
I'll see about writing up "something" of a speedy listing criteria. - jc37 06:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! –Pomte 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting over (sort of) 

message: I'd like to suggest that this page be moved.
*Wikipedia:User categories for discussion to Wikipedia:Wikipedian categories for discussion
I think the reasons are obvious? : ) - jc37 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  Might want to take this higher than just a few of us agreeing on this talk page first, though I'm not sure where. VegaDark (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ambiguous. All categories are Wikipedian categories, i.e. categories within Wikipedia. User categories corresponds with userboxes and userpages. –Pomte 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no. All categories may be Wikipedia categories, (or rather categories of Wikipedia - let's hear it for the genitive case : ) - But only the subcats of :Category:Wikipedians are Wikipedian categories. - jc37 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming genetive case means that a Wikipedian is also known as a Wikipedia user, which means "Wikipedia:User categories for discussion", when neglecting the conventional colon, reads as "Wikipedia User categories for discussion", which is a lot more intuitive to a newcomer than prefixing "Wikipedian" with "Wikipedia:" as in the case of your proposal. When choosing between two alternatives with nearly identical meaning, the user-friendly case ought to prevail. –Pomte 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia:" should be ignored, except as a namespace convention, the same way we ignore "Template" or "Category:" in naming discussions. Incidentally, on other wikis, what we call the Wikipedia namespace, is called the "Project:" namespace. - jc37 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you going to propose renaming Wikipedia:User categorisation as well? –Pomte 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought about it, but in looking it over, it should probably be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians by location or something similar, since it seems to be only about the location cats. - jc37 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this page should be moved, and as for Wikipedia:User categorisation, that is so ancient it should just be deleted.--Mike Selinker 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  would have to be renamed as well, if not deleted. –Pomte 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why in the world would we delete something just because it is old? --- RockMFR 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: I noticed that the UCFD archives are ordered reverse chronologically. Is there any particular reason for that? I honestly have no strong preference one way or the other, but I found it to be a bit curious. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing for ease of access: people are usually more interested in more recent ones if they're browsing.--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive ordering 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Merge_UCFD_here.2C_redux_redux.--Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet again with the merging 

message: This page has now been merged with the main CFD page, and is no longer active.--Aervanath (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer active