Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User/Archive 2

message: When doing userpage changes due to a resultant UCFD, please be careful to not break the user's code on the page.
See this at User:Coolgamer. It's possibly the worst example of where removing or changing categories had left the page in a mess. It took quite a bit of time to manually go through and try to fix the breaks. (I didn't completely fix the formatting, just obvious syntax errors, but hopefully the user can fix his preferences from there.)
One thing to watch for:
This should be the last line for most userbox code:
 |}</div> 
It should not be on the same line as the text that precedes it.
Hope this helps. - jc37 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code Breaks 

message: Any chance of reviving Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories and attempting to get it to guideline status? VegaDark 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you there. We need to have a good discussion about what is and is not acceptable here. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pursuant to a related subject, I put a note on the userpage talk page about a guideline. This may lead to other guidelines, as discussed above.--Mike Selinker 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've stated before, this is my criteria, based on Cswrye's guideline: A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia. I would be willing to have this (or some edited version of this) at the top of the page if people want. But I don't feel comfortable putting it there myself.--Mike Selinker 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User categories guidelines

message: I'm wondering what people think about :Category:Wikipedians by web browser and its dozen or so subcategories. Should they exist? Then again, what is the purpose of most user cats anyway? Xiner (talk, email) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of them should be at least renamed to "Wikipedians interested in".  In the long run my ultimate goal for this category would be to upmerge them all and rename the parent cat to" Wikipedians interested in collaborating on web browser articles" (or a name very similar). VegaDark 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I like VegaDark's idea. Dan, I think any stats analysis program on a server would be more reliable than a self-selected group of Wikipedians with an account. Also it's only a bit less commercial than those cats that mention individual products/companies. Xiner (talk, email) 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't bother me, nor do any of the tech categories.--Mike Selinker 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MS here. And to answer the question at the top: "...what is the purpose of most user cats anyway?" - Communication of knowledge about a Wikipedian's knowledge, experience, interests, current status, etc. Any of which may be useful indirectly or directly in collaboration. In other words, there is quite a difference between saing that you use IE or that you use Firefox, and saying that you like click on "internet options" through IE. How specific a category should sub-categorise is, of course, subjective, but browser type is well above such a dividing line. And as far as sub-categorising, such a framework is not only allowed, but embraced when categorising articles. It is, after all, what sub-categories are for.  I don't believe that Wikipedian categories should be any different in that respect.- jc37 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll about Category:Wikipedians by web browser 

message: I'd like a discussion about whether we should support Wikia-related categories. If we do, obviously such categories should be subcats of a single Wikipedians by Wikia Wiki or some such name.
Since Wikia sites are typically topic based (such as Star Trek's Memory Alpha), they obviously can be considered useful for collaboration.
We already support whether a Wikipedian has an account on the various sister projects and language prjects (such as commons).
Note: AFAIK Wikia is not under the Wikimedia foundation, though it was apparently founded by User:Jimbo Wales and User:Angela. Though apparently Wikipedia supports interwiki linking between the sister projects and the Wikia sites (see: m:Help:Interwiki linking#Wikia and m:Interwiki map.)
Interested in further discussion. - jc37 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikia is a for-profit organization. I'm against the proposal right now, because we've just deleted a Battlestar Wiki user cat -- a deletion I support. Xiner (talk, email) 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support deletion of all those categories for the concern I mentioned above - If we allow categories that can only be used to collaborate on a single article, we are allowing over 1.6 million user categories.  Perhaps an upmerge of some sort to make the categories facilitate collaboration on 5-10 articles minimum would be a solution as well (i.e. :Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on humor website topics) VegaDark 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of work, but I suppose that could work, too. Xiner (talk, email) 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikia

message: I didn't know that :Category:Wikipedians by website exists. By its logic, :Category:Wikipedians on Wikia should exist if it doesn't already. I'm still against the idea, though, as it doesn't help Wikipedia at all. I wonder if others feel differently though. What if I bring it up for deletion? Xiner (talk, email) 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support deletion of all those categories for the concern I mentioned above - If we allow categories that can only be used to collaborate on a single article, we are allowing over 1.6 million user categories.  Perhaps an upmerge of some sort to make the categories facilitate collaboration on 5-10 articles minimum would be a solution as well (i.e. :Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on humor website topics) VegaDark 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of work, but I suppose that could work, too. Xiner (talk, email) 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Wikipedians by website]]

message: I think the cat should be renamed, but have no idea what it should be. Xiner (talk, email) 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be deleted.  They can add themselves to each ancestry's individual category to communicate this. VegaDark 03:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. To take it a step further, I'm not willing to delete :category:Multiracial Wikipedians, because the intersection of racial identities (rather than the accumulation of separate ones) is often part of those people's character. I think this one might fit that description, or at least I'm not willing to say outright that it doesn't.--Mike Selinker 11:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I want to rename it rather than delete. What do you think of the current name, Mike? Xiner (talk, email) 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries]]

message: While it isn't generally a Speedy criterion for Categories, Up to this point, I've been considering a request to change "Users" to "Wikipedians" as falling under speedy criteria for a User category. 
Another is merely re-arraging the order of the words in a user category name to match consistancy. (Banker Wikipedians vs Wikipedian Bankers, for example).
There have not been any concerns so far (I can't think of a controversial example at all), so should we add this somewhere, for future reference? - jc37 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Xiner (talk, email) 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The speedy criteria should read "Any category intended for Wikipedians that has no indication it is a Wikipedian category can be speedy renamed.  This includes categories that use the wrong naming conventions to indicate it is a user category (i.e. "Users" instead of "Wikipedians"." Sound good? VegaDark 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better. Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuh-huh.--Mike Selinker 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Renaming 

message: In case anyone wants some work to do, there is a list of over 5,000 empty categories (both regular and user alike) at User:Betacommand/Datadump/20070301, most of which can be speedy deleted. VegaDark 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Empty categories

message: Why was I not notified of the vote to delete the Fascist Wikipedians category? Since I am the only one in the category I should be notified so I can state my opinion. It was very underhanded to vote without my knowledge and delete it with only 2 people voting to delete it. If it goes up for a vote again please notify me. At least have that basic decency. Billy Ego 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have looked at the deletion log before creating the category, it was previously deleted and was thus speedy deletable as recreation of previously deleted content.  Discussions don't even need to take place for speedy deletable things, if you think the category should be undeleted you are free to take it to deletion review. VegaDark 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Content"? It's not an article. It's a category. It's absurd that the same thing can be deleted over and over with no discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past. How do I take it to the "deletion review"? Billy Ego 02:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Deletion review -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Billy Ego 02:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Underhanded deletion of Fascist Wikipedianas category

message: :Category:Wikipedians_who_are_failures
My user page was added to this category by noob101
I believe this category is being used as a way of insult me, and Eskimo14 (Possibly other users in the future), and so should be removed. Mootoog 02:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Wikipedians Who are Failures 

message: It looks like there is a common occurance of people confusing the discussions for categories with discussions for templates, primarily userboxes.  Although there is a note saying they are not the same, I doubt many people read it.  Anyone think adding something such as this on the main page would be a good idea? VegaDark 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, I didn't know a warning could be made so easily. But no, I'm not sure how much it'd help. It'll help some, but remember that most people arrive at the page via a deletion notice, and they may only see the section in question, not the messages at the top. It probably won't hurt, so I wouldn't oppose it. I should've tried harder to dispel that misconception, that's for sure. Xiner (talk, email) 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd comment that we already have such a notice at the top of the page, but since this discussion seems to indicate that even you two didn't notice it, perhaps we need some "flash" : ) - jc37 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Although there is a note saying they are not the same, I doubt many people read it." :P VegaDark 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is some confusion and that most people don't read/understand the current language.  The problem isn't lack of notice, it's just that most people are not likely to understand the esoteric arguments involved.  I wonder if it wouldn't help to patrol this from the other end - discuss whether certain userboxes should be allowed to populate categories.  Then, when those discussions end, the categories will probably be empty and can be sd.  If they are not empty, then bring the discussion here, because it will no longer be hard-wired to userboxes.  --NThurston 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox confusion

message: Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should set up Werdnabot to automatically archive this page. VegaDark 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the project page. Can Werdnabot distinguish between closed and open discussions? Xiner (talk, email) 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page needs archiving again. 

message: User:The Thadman/Userbox/PolCompass is still adding people to all the deleted political compass categories.  The code is complicated and I'm not sure how to get it to remove the deleted categories while saving the non-deleted ones.  I asked the creator to remove them over 2 weeks ago and was ignored.  If anyone can take a look at it, that would be great. Several of the categories are high up on Special:Wantedcategories and it would be nice to eiliminate them to discourage recreation. VegaDark 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've got it. Hopefully not wrath. Xiner (talk, email) 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, looks like that did it. VegaDark 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need expert template experience

message: I hope it's been resolved
*Procedural question - As Xiner was the closing admin, I presume that he could have merely changed his closure result to: Relisting for more discussion, rather than this hybrid WP:DRV/WP:UCFD discussion that seems to be taking place here? - jc37 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I intend this to be a relisting, but I wasn't sure how to do that. If you could fix the listing, I'd appreciate it. Xiner (talk, email) 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Typically, just remove the top and bottom closure templates, and copy/paste the discussion to the date of the relisting, leaving a link to the new discussion at the location of the old discussion if the move places the discussion on a different page. At this point, to enact a relisting will require merging the discussions. Otherwise, I suppose this can just be treated as a "renomination". (In which case, you could just change your closure comments.) Which would you prefer? - jc37 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think I've got it. Should the past participants be notified? Xiner (talk, email) 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockroaches procedural question 

message: How'd everyone feel about a group nom of the pet usercats? It seems to me that the pet article and talk pages of individual breeds, as well as various WikiProjects, would be more scholarly sources of info. WP:NOT a social ring, so I'm not sure what use these categories serve. There's also the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by pet document for those that insist on declaring their pets. Xiner (talk, email) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can help cooperation. Snowolf (talk) CON COI -  22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How? Xiner (talk, email) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing the waters 

message: Merging subcats of :Category:Wikipedians interested in watching sports with those who play. I'd like to see how it pans out. Xiner (talk, email) 22:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with the merging. - jc37 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A project for the ambitious 

message: When relisting a discussion, I presume that the discussion should continue for the full 5 days before we close it?
I ask because we've now had several relistings that were closed in less than 3 days.
Or are we making a guideline that such relistings may be speedily closed (after 2 days) once a consensus appears to have been reached? - jc37 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regular discussions are supposed to run 7 days last time I checked, but I could be wrong.  I don't have a problem with an early closure, though, if the result is obviously not going to change in the remaining couple of days or so.  After relisting, a discussion can be closed at any time a consensus looks to have emerged, according to discussions I have read at deletion review. You don't have to wait any extra amount of time. VegaDark 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give a link to those discussions at DRV? - jc37 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go VegaDark 06:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm not understanding the link. The first nomination was 10+ days, the second lasted 6 days. What am I missing? - jc37 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was run the required five days, there is no requirement to run it for five more days after it's being relisted, just enough to collect more opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it did run the required days. Or am I missing something? - jc37 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios. The Afd was relisted the same day it was closed.  It ran for more than 10 days, but that was all before it was relisted. Only a few hours passed between relisting and closing. VegaDark 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, It looks to me as if everything that has been recently relisted has had around 6 days of discussion time.  What discussions are you referring to?  Or was I right the first time in assuming you were talking about additional days? VegaDark 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes, now I understand what you were saying. You might want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if you don't like it.  Personally I don't have a problem with it. VegaDark 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting discussions 

message: Another one. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni usercats