Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories

message: Excellent start. Would you like some help, or would you prefer waiting for such collaboration after it's been moved to Wikipedia space? - jc37 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Help? Yes, please! :) I was planning on asking you, Horologium, VegaDark, Kbdank, et al. to share your thoughts after I'd brought it to a more complete state, so... Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not at all, if there is support for (or, at least, no opposition to) it. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, moved. Also merged a few things to Wikipedia:User categories. - jc37 00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would you like some help? 

message: After looking this page over quite a bit, I think that this is probably better as a user category version of Wikipedia:Overcategorisation. Would you be opposed to this being moved to Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories? - jc37 16:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, if there is support for (or, at least, no opposition to) it. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, moved. Also merged a few things to Wikipedia:User categories. - jc37 00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought 

message: In looking over the various "literature through various media" cats, it seems there is a "trend" or convention to delete individual titles, but to retain a series. "By genre" seems also to be retainable. As well, retaining, "by author" (books), or "by director" (film). People such as Aaron Spelling, Glen A. Larson, Garry Marshall, and Sherwood Schwartz,  might also be good examples for television (should such categories ever be created).
I wonder if there is a way to "work this in", of if it might be "too specific" (even though I would guess that these consist of a rather large "bulk" of the categories). - jc37 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Given results such as this one I have to question whether there is a consensus for a blanket ban against of categories in userspace. 
As one person wrote in the above discussion,
:"For goodness sake, just install a category space for user pages only. Then there is no interference at all to article space. [redacted 1] will be relieved of the sisyphean slog she says she experiences, and [redacted 2] can recover from the trauma of witnessing the abuse he sees of the article category system. Everyone gets what they want. (Unless there are users dedicated to fanning absolutely avoidable drama - but no, that couldn't be, not on Wikipedia)"
We could even have a category space just for jokes, and if anyone complains we could ask why they are reading that part of Wikipedia if it displeases them so much.
Definitely keep the "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive" ban, though. That one we really need.
01:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Categories that are jokes/nonsense" 

message: While this is a good general principle, in the following discussions...
* Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF
* Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Category:Wikipedians who feel disappointed with WMF
...it is being misused in an attempt to stop criticism of the W?F. WP:NOTADVOCACY is clear on this: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace".
IMO the current language is misleading and should be expanded to make it clear that it does not apply to non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position"