Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User/Archive 3

message: The UCFD process is needed to justify depopulating a user category (except for categories solely populated by a userbox, a process is necessary to justify editing other users' user pages), so these categories should have been nominated. A nomination _requires_ adding a template. This was absolutely the right course of action and I don't see what else you think he should have done. --Random832 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, instead of creating :Category:Wikipedians in USA, Patrick should've simply modified the relevant pages to :Category:American Wikipedians. Xiner (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Random832 someone here understands. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think either solution would be okay, and that the effective accusations of bad faith toward Patricknoddy are, well, a bit much. (Be careful with the term "disrupt", as it has a meaning well defined at WP:DE and WP:POINT as being bad-faith action).  From my point of view, Patricknoddy appears to have been following procedure and being cautious, instead of being bold to go modify other people's pages.  I don't think he should be castigated or threatened with blocks for attempting to do the right thing.  I believe that a lot of other people would have done what he did, because of the "sacrosanctity" that many people feel about their user pages.  I'm not sure I'd want someone modifying mine either w/o the modification being backed up with a consensus record at XfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patricknoddy acted properly. 

message: Would this process be faster/preferred for trivial renaming such as alma mater: Edit the userbox to use the correctly named category, create it, and then WP:CSD#C1 the old empty cat after 4 days. –Pomte 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that what you're suggesting is in the blurred area between Speedy and being bold, since it merely involves editing a template. If, by editing the template, the category no longer has members, then I presume an admin could delete it at any time due to C1 - empty. (I've been doing this myself, though mostly as a result of WP:UCFD discussions.) The thing is, an edit to a template can be reverted, so the guidelines at WP:BOLD would seem to apply. - jc37 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, empty categories are supposed to stay empty for 4 days before being speedied.  But I don't see a problem with doing that for uncontroversial renames in the interest of improving the encyclopedia, per WP:IAR. VegaDark 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial renaming 

message: I've realized we've had some deletions, but they never took place. We need a bot or something like that to keep up with the deletions, mergers, etc. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have bots (WP:CFD/W, but they are imperfect, especially when templates such as userboxes are involved. Sometimes it's just easier to do it by hand. Xiner (talk, a promise) 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bots don't do their work at all, or so I don't believe. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that we're all volunteers here, so things may not happen as quickly as you may like : ) - jc37 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping up 

message: I've gone through quite a few userboxes adjusting categories to match current consensus (most recently, the native language programming language cats). I've found that if the userbox has a double redirect (as due to userfication, for example), the cats take a LONG time to depopulate, even though the userpages show the new, updated category. Obviously we should avoid deleting a category before depopulating it, however, I've found that if I go through every remaining member of the category, and find that each's category has changed, but this just hasn't been reflected (yet) in the category listing, then it's safe to delete, with the presumption that the servers will eventually catch up, and depopulate the category. Just thought I would mention this for anyone else who may have had similar issues.
PS: A way to "speed up" the process would be to actually "dummy edit" each usepage, since that will update the category, but I don't think that that is a good idea due to (among other things) the large number of userpages involved.
Hope this helps : ) - jc37 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox transclusions 

message: The page is way too messy.  Every day, the page gets a "Speedy Deletion" notice.  Whoever has contributed a lot to it, I don't think you want to see it go.  I reccomend that everyone who contributed to the page, and doesn't want to see their work go down the drain, help fix it.  Thanks, Meldshal42 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I think you posted on the wrong page. VegaDark 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MESSY!!! 

message: Currently, :Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject has 2 official naming conventions for subcategories for some reason, instead of just one.  It uses both "WikiProject x members" and "WikiProject x participants". Does anyone else support deciding on one, and renaming the rest?  Personally I prefer participants.  There are also several subcategories I noticed that don't match either of these conventions, and should be renamed to whatever we decide on. We could also decide on a completely new naming convention such as "Wikipedians in WikiProject x" but that would mean even more work. VegaDark 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a recollection that this was discussed before with no consensus. Whatever is decided, we should note that the general Project member template - Template:Participant puts people in the participant category. One result is that for some Projects, both categories exist. For the Chemistry Project most are in "WikiProject Chemistry members" but a few because of that template are in "WikiProject Chemistry participants". --Bduke 07:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like 'participants' because it implies obligatory contribution unlike 'member'. There should be no distinction between the two, so I agree on merging. –Pomte 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with this.  We've had several "discussions" about this. The most notable thing to me was that there were more comments about how they were afraid that "participants vs members" advocates would come out of the woodwork than ones who actually did : ) - Oh, and I prefer "participants" as well. - jc37 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer 'members' because it implies a sense of belonging, not just some casual contributor.  In any case, I think this falls under the "Ain't broke" guideline.  --NThurston 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's now an opposing preference, there's no point trying to settle on one term over the other. It's trivial and different projects may decide on different category names. However, it is broke for the projects that have both, such as Chemistry and :Category:WikiProject Tennessee members/:Category:WikiProject Tennessee participants. Someone please notify these Porjects, and leave it to them to decide which one to stick with. –Pomte 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good compromise - either/or, but not both. --NThurston 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Tennessee and Chemistry have been notified.  Group nom for remaining anomalies has been posted. --NThurston 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing at all "official" about those naming conventions.  Please do not lend undue weight to the preferences expressed by "janitorial" Wikiprojects.  The above discussion strikes me as categorization policing and consistency insistence for its own sake.  I think we all have better things to do.  If Wikiproject X wants to call is members "participants" and WikiProject Y wants to call its participants "members", that really is not only no one else's business really, it is of no consensquence whatsoever.  The choice has always been up to the projects, and this arguably is not the venue at all for a putsch to override this tradition of laissez faire permissiveness; some projects wants to stress membership in a cadre, others want to stress participation in actually solving problem, and that's just fine.  We are here to write an encyclopedia, not go around enforcing "rules" just for the hell of it, especially when they are not in fact rules at all.   Also, please stop trying to rename project member/participant categories in the form "Members of [project]" and "Participants in [project]"; these were named this way for good (disambiguating) reasons.  CSD has a long history of permissiveness in this area when it is warranted (cf. , , etc.; these "violate" the "standard" that would call for nonsensical names like , , and they do so for a reason (parseability and disambiguation).  I.e., let's quit being nitpicky about pointless things and go do something useful. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also: Template:Members and Template:Participants. - jc37 12:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As my grandfather used to say: "Yeah-huh" (which apparently meant "right!") — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The original discussion was at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#WP members and Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Participants in WPs. There we went for the hippocratic approach, which was that "(x)s in WikiProject (y)" would be named to "WikiProject (y) (x)s". But we wouldn't switch members to participants, or vice versa. I'm fine with bringing it up again, though I'm quite confident that the "WikiProject (y) (x)s" formula will survive regardless.--Mike Selinker 04:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject

message: A reason for deletion that comes up is that the given user category doesn't facilitate collaboration. Personally I think few if any of the user categories we have encourage collaboration at all. Is there any evidence whatsoever that users actually browse these categories for the off-chance that the people in it want to collaborate on some articles? If so, encourage them to join or start an associated WikiProject. They can still find the others by checking whatlinkshere on the userbox. But the primary use that comes to mind is social networking, i.e. finding other users with the same interests. WP:UC is inactive, and I don't know whether there was any original encyclopedic reason to start the old lists. –Pomte 13:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UC isn't , just not active enough.  I'm not sure I want to opine on its merits otherwise, really.  What concerns me here and now is that WP:NOT is very much active, yet an enormous amount of this stuff is MySpace-y fanwanking, clearly in violation of WP:NOT, yet !voters here keep urging "Keep" on the basis of utterly bogus "naming conventions" (i.e., random hatnotes that this editor or that affixed to an itself-questionable parentcat some while back, and no one thought to question it until now; they're not "conventions", they're a mistakes).  To the extent that several thousand usercats are salvageable at all, they must be changed to "Wikipedians who are interested in X" categories, to give at least some fantastical possibility that they'll actually be used for collaboration instead of band T-shirt style cultural-product advertising, and equally importantly so that we can move away from the neverending, and ever-growing, like/hate/support/oppose/fans of/who think X sucks/use/don't use/etc./barf nonsense cycle.  This is seriously getting out of hand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 14:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The attitude here is that convention should be argued against in a group nom, not a specific renaming discussion for one particular subcat. If you want to get technical, they should be renamed Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on articles about or related to X. Merely being interested in X does not imply any sort of activity on articles related to X; you could be an idle fan from afar. However, it is a step in the right direction to avoid exclusion: For things like sports teams, both fans and rivals belong in Category:Wikipedians interested in X, but the rivals wouldn't attach themselves to Category:Wikipedian X fans even if they edit the article. –Pomte 14:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A) No particular disagreement on the "meat" of that from me, other than I don't think that a logorrhoeac Cat. name like your example is actually necessary to get the point across.  B) However, I suppose I must then simply object to "the attitude here", which does not seem to me to comport with that of the rest of WP.  It doesn't generally matter where a "sanity check" comes from; the fact that one is made and others "start ta go 'hmmm...'" (which is clearly the case here) is generally enough, and we just work together to make the solution happen.  Insisting on process (and in this case pseudo-process on several levels I've already addressed on the non-talk page) for its own sake, strikes me as counter-productive (and if you've been following the WP:ATT debate at all, you'll recognize me for a mega-stickler for process...when it actually matters).  C) All that said, if the only possible way for me to help steer this truck where it needs to be headed is to spend days and days doing group-noms, then maybe I will, but don't expect it to happen any time soon.  Cleaning up userspace and userpace categories is pretty low on the priority stack compared to article work, to me.  I just can't do it right now.  I know that at least two other people here seem to understand what I'm getting at, and are UCfD "regulars", so please just take the reins and make it so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly have bashed down the collaboration-is-our-god argument more times than I can count. I believe basic user data is fine, as are statements of cultural likes (but not dislikes), as are claims of conditions or beliefs. I don't like joke categories, and I don't like divisive categories. But as long as categories are consistently named and useful in linking people up, I'm okay with them.--Mike Selinker 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support deleting all user categories to get rid of any problems. –Pomte 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration argument 

message: Perhaps the way to go about this is simply to develop a naming convention (and by corrollary, an inclusion convention) for user categories.
I'm going to spend some time going through every user category (ugh @ me for volunteering), and take some notes along the way. There are subcats of subcats of subcats. 
Comments are welcome : ) - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you do the tedious job of clicking through categories, why not get a bot to dump them all into an easy-to-read indented-by-hierarchy list somewhere? –Pomte 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of such a bot, I'm all ears : ) - jc37 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this out if you don't know about it. –Pomte 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For the template, I've made a draft at User:Pomte/Template:ucfdepop, copying the look of . –Pomte 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on the template. It should probably be comparable to . - jc37 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the text to make it a bit more generic for usage, and moved it to template space - Template:Parent category. - jc37 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found . Merge? –Pomte 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first, I was thinking yes, but there's a possibility that there is a subtle of semantic difference in usage that we're unaware of. But if not, then yes, some sort of merger could be appropriate, unless we want to less generalise the parent category notice back into being user category-only. - jc37 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatlinkshere doesn't suggest any difference. –Pomte 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Are they widely called "super-categories"? What about ditching the a.k.a's and just describe the function like ? –Pomte 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're called all three terms on WP:CFD. The least useful descriptive name is probably meta-category. They've also been called "overcats" as well. But parent cat and super cat seem to be the most common usage. (I didn't call the template supercat simply because it doesn't need a cape : ) - jc37 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rename to Template:Parent category for brevity, and it does more than notify: it tracks! If you agree, I'll redirect  to this new name and post a notice at WT:CAT. –Pomte 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and done (as I note that you spotted the change before I could post here, and followed through on the above : ) - jc37 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In :Category:Parent categories, do we really want every single parent category inside it? Alternatively, it can be subcategorized by type to distinguish between article categories and user categories. For bot and maintenance purposes though, one single huge category should work. –Pomte 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that, and had removed the cat entirely, but then I remembered this page and thought that it might be useful. We could split the category by namespace, I suppose (since there are Wikipedia:space cats as well). But just keeping in mind that the main (if possibly only) reason for the category's existance is for maintenance, typically bot maintenance. - jc37 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The userbox linking is going to be hard to enforce. From now on at UCFDiscussions once I find the userbox, I'll link and transclude it in the category. –Pomte 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that if you transclude a userbox to a category, it typically adds the category to itself : ) - jc37 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can risk having the category include itself, and if not, use <includeonly>. I've made a template at User:Pomte/Template:usercat that does this in one line. –Pomte 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I hate it when a category is a subcategory of itself (usually due to the userbox being on the page), and would support removing any such occurances. VegaDark 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A way to uncategorize any non-user pages that transclude the userbox is  –Pomte 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We went through this process at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_States.  We now have a "nocat" switch which allows each userbox to be displayed without cat'ing the page.  It is incorporated into  so that none of the userboxes create parent-child problems in the categories.  It also allows the userbox to be displayed on sandbox and other pages without cat'ing them.  --NThurston 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions (categories) 

message: One thing that I would like discussed in the meantime is the creation of a template for "parent categories" which should not have Wikipedian userpages as members, but are only organisational catgegories, designed to hold only sub-categories (and possibly historical lists). It should not be garish, or huge, but should be clearly evident by the casual reader.
Once we decide on that, then we'll decide which categories should have it.
And after that, in one action, we'll depopulate those categories. (In one action, so that we don't rack up a zillion page changes to user pages, so to, hopefully, minimise confusion, and possible disruption.) - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the template, I've made a draft at User:Pomte/Template:ucfdepop, copying the look of . –Pomte 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on the template. It should probably be comparable to . - jc37 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the text to make it a bit more generic for usage, and moved it to template space - Template:Parent category. - jc37 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found . Merge? –Pomte 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first, I was thinking yes, but there's a possibility that there is a subtle of semantic difference in usage that we're unaware of. But if not, then yes, some sort of merger could be appropriate, unless we want to less generalise the parent category notice back into being user category-only. - jc37 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatlinkshere doesn't suggest any difference. –Pomte 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Are they widely called "super-categories"? What about ditching the a.k.a's and just describe the function like ? –Pomte 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're called all three terms on WP:CFD. The least useful descriptive name is probably meta-category. They've also been called "overcats" as well. But parent cat and super cat seem to be the most common usage. (I didn't call the template supercat simply because it doesn't need a cape : ) - jc37 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rename to Template:Parent category for brevity, and it does more than notify: it tracks! If you agree, I'll redirect  to this new name and post a notice at WT:CAT. –Pomte 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and done (as I note that you spotted the change before I could post here, and followed through on the above : ) - jc37 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In :Category:Parent categories, do we really want every single parent category inside it? Alternatively, it can be subcategorized by type to distinguish between article categories and user categories. For bot and maintenance purposes though, one single huge category should work. –Pomte 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that, and had removed the cat entirely, but then I remembered this page and thought that it might be useful. We could split the category by namespace, I suppose (since there are Wikipedia:space cats as well). But just keeping in mind that the main (if possibly only) reason for the category's existance is for maintenance, typically bot maintenance. - jc37 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent categories 

message: Another thing is that I think we're going to have to require is that there must be a link in a category introduction to every userbox which transcludes the category. This is rather necessary especially in light of the large amount of userboxes being subst: and/or userfied due to recent "migration" actions. It's making it more and more difficult to find populating templates, and such. - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The userbox linking is going to be hard to enforce. From now on at UCFDiscussions once I find the userbox, I'll link and transclude it in the category. –Pomte 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that if you transclude a userbox to a category, it typically adds the category to itself : ) - jc37 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can risk having the category include itself, and if not, use <includeonly>. I've made a template at User:Pomte/Template:usercat that does this in one line. –Pomte 00:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I hate it when a category is a subcategory of itself (usually due to the userbox being on the page), and would support removing any such occurances. VegaDark 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A way to uncategorize any non-user pages that transclude the userbox is  –Pomte 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We went through this process at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_States.  We now have a "nocat" switch which allows each userbox to be displayed without cat'ing the page.  It is incorporated into  so that none of the userboxes create parent-child problems in the categories.  It also allows the userbox to be displayed on sandbox and other pages without cat'ing them.  --NThurston 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox links in category introductions 

message: Is there an admin that could look at my speedy noms and either close or re-list as non-speedy? --NThurston 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  However, after these are considered, that's pretty much all there is.  There are a few others that I have requested that the project itself consider.  --NThurston 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and closed several of them. - jc37 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy actions 

message: It seems that this category has reared its head again. This time resulting in an arbcom case. Please see User talk:JzG#Fascist Wikipedians for more information. - jc37 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist Wikipedians 

message: The "like" vs "interested in" debate.
I was reading through Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox, which seems to apply to this discussion, especially Content, and category inclusion.
While I think "interested in" or even some other phrase may replace the verbs: favors, likes, loves, prefers, and fascinated by; I think the replacement is subjective, and could possibly be argued that the distinction is merely WP:ILIKEIT or more appropriately WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
That said, I think I'm shifting to semi-neutral on this aspect of the debate. 
However, the other verbs, such as: listens, watches, plays, etc are more specific, and "useful" distinctions. And I still strongly oppose changing all subcats of :Category:Wikipedians to "interested in".
As stated above on this page, and elsewhere, User categories do not have to be directly collaborative in order to be useful for collaboration.
I welcome other's thoughts on this. - jc37 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perspective, this is not an "I don't like it" issue at all, but a WP:NPOV one (yes, NPOV is intended principally for articles, but as a principle it remains important more broadly).  I don't particularly have any issue "Wikipedians who play trombones", because it isn't ever likely to inspire someone to create a "Wikipedians who don't play trombones and think they suck" counter-category.  "Wikipedians who love Britney Spears" is fairly likely to lead to a reflexive anti-cat.  The secondary concern is that while a cat. doesn't have to be directly collaborative to be useful, it's way more useful if it is directly collaborative, and I feel that "interested in" is more likely to to foster actual article collaboration that simple declarations of fandom.  I'm not in very many "interested in" categories, because I know that people may seek out my input/participation for something as a result; I choose them carefully.  If I were a 16-year-old fanboy again I might well be in 250 "like"/"love" categories just to proclaim what I "dig".  That's a major part of the issue to me.  While Jimbo is right, and WP isn't going to just fall apart all of a sudden because editors dither around in such self-categorization pursuits, I see zero evidence that POV User categories do anything productive for the project.  That's my take on it in a nutshell (albeit a big brazil nut shell). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern would be already covered by the suggestion to avoid creating "not" based categories. When faced with a positive and a negative category on the same subject, one of the two should typically be deleted, and of the two, typically the negative should be deleted. - jc37 10:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That partially addresses one of my concerns (partially because the fact that we'll delete not-cats doesn't keep them from being created and wasting all of our time.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said about just about anything on Wikipedia. Do we stop doing something positive simply because someone else may, or even is likely to do something not-so-positive? Of course not. - jc37 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  For Wikipedians interested in BS, there are Wikipedians disinterested in BS and flabbergasted that there is yet another category devoted to her. I highly doubt that either name fosters collaboration better than the other. Everything in mainspace should be generic/impersonal, but user stuff can take a more personal attitude, which seems to be a fundamental motivation behind users slapping userboxes on themselves in the first place. Personally I think the entire idea of user categories is a waste of time, and they all reduce to POV however you reword them, but I'm not drafting a proposal to delete them all. (Should I?) –Pomte 19:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective "concern" 

message: After having had to correct quite a few userpages due to others' unintentional code breaking, and seeing so many userboxes (including subst ones) with incorrectly coded category inclusion, I've added some syntax information at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Syntax for including categories.
I think that Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox and it's subsections (of which the above link is one) should be required reading for anyone working on userboxes with category inclusion. Hoping this helps. - jc37 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category inclusion syntax 

message: Per the recent discussions, I've updated Wikipedia:Userboxes to reflect what did at least have consensus. Essentially preference verbs, such as "like, love, enjoy" should be changed to a more specific verb, or at least, "interested in". - jc37 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...interested in... 

message: :Wikipedia:Instruments - The categories were named after the userboxes. I've adjusted the main templates' coding changing the naming convention from:
*User <instrument abbreviation>-#
to:
*Wikipedian <instrument+ist>-#
per several UCFD discussions.
Which leaves us with more than several redlinks. If anyone knows a bot owner who might like to help with this, drop me a note here or on my talk page. - jc37 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only Wikipedia:Instruments that needs to be updated, right? I've edited the template to default to linking "Category:Wikipedian X players" and the other suffixes can be set manually. –Pomte 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Userboxes like  need to be fixed. –Pomte 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure what is going on now. See the subcats of  for an example of the switch-over. Delete all the user sax-#, right? The users still in those will have to be switched over, and that can be done with a bot or AWB. I think the actual category renaming will require a little more than bot work considering some templates/cats I've seen are coded improperly, and the ists parameter has to be figured out by a human. –Pomte 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind starting hunting the templates down, I just want to do it with little pause between it and the bot depopulation, in order to reduce confusion as much as possible. And all the "new" categories need to have :Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument added (which will likely create the cat page). - jc37 07:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created all the red Cat:Wikipedian ist-# categories I could find, so now they coexist with Cat:User code-#, which can be depopulated all at once. Also rewrote Wikipedia:Instruments/Adding to prevent new additions from messing it up. I don't like how user pages are in both Cat:Wikipedian ist and Cat:Wikipedian ist-#, but I can't think of a better solution. –Pomte 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments categories 

message: Aren't :Category:Wikipedians by number of edits and all subcategories speedy deletable per this CFD? It has been almost a year, however, and consensus can change. Would UCFD'ing this be be better? VegaDark (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Renominating seems like a better idea. In this August 06 CfD, the category got renamed without scrutiny. :Category:Wikipedian edit archive appears useful in grouping those historic lists, unless you'd prefer a template for navigation between them. –Pomte 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Wikipedians by number of edits