Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User/Archive 4

message: At the Help Desk, an editor posted a request for a Template:UCfD result, similar to Template:Cfd result. See template question at help Desk. I have directed him/her here for a reply as this probably is a better place to address such a request. Please reply below. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Cfduserend, I think? - jc37 09:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, thankyou!—arf! 09:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template request

message: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#User categories deleted out of process - There is now an WP:AN/I discussion. - jc37 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pages_stuck_in_bureaucratic.2C_wheel-warring_purgatory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:AN/I 

message: I have a concern about the new rash of UCFD nominations, in that it seems that instead of nominating for deletion user categories that have no potential for collaborative effort, it seems we are starting to eliminate user categories based on the fact that they have potential for social networking, or that we aren't sure of this category's use for encyclopedia-building. As absence of proof isn't the same as proof of absence, I think if we have several people who say they don't see a collaborative merit to the user cat and one who says they see one, the argument who sees merit should trump the others, if the editor can prove his or her point.--Ramdrake 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole collaboration argument is nonsense, as suggested in a previous discussion. User categories can't make this place MySpace; the people can (with their elaborate user pages unrelated to the encyclopedia). If there's a mentality that most if not all user categories should be deleted, then propose all of them at once, with a request for wider community input. –Pomte 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new string of nominations hits the point of what I have been saying since day 1- It doesn't help to know who "likes", "supports", "watches", etc. - None of those help encyclopedia building.  Perhaps now everything will have to be "Interested in", which is what I have been saying the naming conventions should be for a long time. VegaDark (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that all categories must strictly help in writing articles. Wikipedia is en encyclopedia written by a community of volunteers. The community aspect is at least as important as the encyclopedia aspect. What harm if the users socialise among themselves? We must remember that all contributors are doing this for purely unselfish reasons. I can't see any problem with becoming a little of MySpace in order to attract and retain more contributors. Loom91 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: VegaDark, I doubt the wording has much to do with it. –Pomte 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, wording isn't the question. paternalism is. A few people here do not like categories of this sort and think them useless. Hundreds of wikipedians think otherwise. This is heavy-handed top-down imposition of personal preferences.   First, an attempt to delete them by speedy; then, an attempt to delete them by biased close of the discussions. Then , nominating a few dozen more while the deletion review on the earlier batch is still in process. DGG 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your argument makes little sense. Wikipedia is not a majority rule, or a democracy. We enforce on the basis of policy, not what "feels good." If you, somehow, feel that Wikipedia needs a few extraneous categories that should squeeze past policy just because they're funny or harmless, then Wikipedia is not the place for you.--WaltCip 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is simply that it has become clear that all user categories are under attack under the argument that Wikipedia isn't a social net, no matter whether or not they may have a collaborative value, and no matter whether or not there is a consensus to keep. My point is, if we're going to eventually do away with all user categories, let's just nominate them all at once, and do away with that aspect of Wikipedia. Currently, this piecemeal deletion is wasting everybody's time on the assumption that some of them may have redeemable value, whereas it's becoming clear that consensus about whether to keep these categories (consensus being what Wikipedia is supposed to be founded on) isn't even being respected.--Ramdrake 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, quite simply, not true. :Category:Wikipedians by language was recently kept at UCFD and DRV with strong consensus and I doubt anyone will challenge the validity of :Category:Wikipedians by interest. I would argue that most subcategories of the following are also useful: :Category:Wikipedians by profession, :Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status, :Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration, :Category:Wikipedians by location, and others. The categories that are being nominated are primarily those related to "Wikipedians by lifestyle". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, what about :Category:Wikipedians by religion and :Category:Wikipedians by political ideology? These two were closed as delete when there was no consensus to delete (and a strong consensus to keep) and the argument had been made by several editors that they were useful for collaboration; they are both currently undergoing DRVs.--Ramdrake 17:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two are obviously ones about which we disagree. You consider them useful for collaboration; I don't. That does not mean that all (or even most) user categories are "under attack". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about the new rash of UCFD nominations 

message: I have this page on my watchlist for some days now and am honestly shocked how many constructive power is wasted on these crap categories. Maybe this has been tried before, but isn't there a possibility to turn the process around and demand approval for user categories before they are installed? It's just
sad to see how a number of great Wikipedians have to waste lots of time sorting out completely ridiculous categories, while at the same time we have massive backlogs that could use their help. Malc82 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Instead of copy and pasting the exact same rationale across dozens of sections, there should be a central discussion on the whole purpose of user categories to settle the matter. The approval process won't stop the nominations of hundreds of user categories that have existed for many months, and inclusion criteria need to be established as the result of discussion anyway for there to be a creepy approval process. –Pomte 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly the community discussion would decide that none of these should be deleted. It will save considerable effort to freeze the process now.  Pomte argues: Delete first, discuss whether we should have deleted afterwards. DGG 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be central discussion, but I doubt that the creators of most of the cats discussed on this page really care. The reason to demand an approval would be that people who nominate a category would then be forced to actually provide a reason why they think a certain category is useful, which would most likely eliminate a large amount of the cats discussed here and thus save time. To DGG, do you honestly think that all (or even most) of these cats serve any purpose? Malc82 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from any merits (or lack thereof) I think that what you are proposing is not technically feasible. --After Midnight 0001 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the simplest solution is to have a "reason for creating category" panel to complete when creating a new category.  (Something similar is already required when moving an article.) The new category + rationale could then be reviewed either by an admin or (better still) listed on a "Newly created user categories" page in much the same way that articles are reviewed. The presence of an automatic review would probably cut down the number of creations substantially and would make it easier to intervene before they became too populated. ROGER TALK 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'm not sure if my "proposal" is technically possible, I only wanted to express my concerns about how much work this project is causing. Imagine how helpful it could be if this was a three-nominations-a-day minor project and the Wikipedians concerned here could instead use their time to patrol changes or cleaning up backlogs. Roger's idea seems very reasonable to me, a handful of soon-experienced admins could then check if new usercats serve a purpose in a matter of minutes. From looking at the nominations here it seems obvious that most of them aren't created to disrupt but because people don't realize what usercats are for (and in which cases Wikiprojects would be better suited). Malc82 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval process? 

message: :Category: Wikipedians by religion and its subcats were closed as a delete 2 days ago , however the subcategory :Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians is still existent (and tagged with a link to said CfD). Am I missing something here? Malc82 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the subcategories still exist and will, I presume, be emptied and deleted in the coming days. Of course, it might be prudent to wait for the result of the deletion review before taking any large-scale action. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize there is a deletion review. Thanks for your reply. Malc82 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Incomplete? 

message: I don't know the procedure for archiving xfD cats, so I'd like to ask someone who is qualified to please archive all of the discussions from June 16th and earlier, as they are all closed. There is one open cat on June 18th :Category:Dadaist Wikipedians; once it is closed, every discussion from June 21st or earlier will be done. (Dadaist has 8 !votes, 6 for delete and 2 for keep; It might be ready for closure, since it's been listed for 10 days now, and is a contested speedy that should have gone to DRV.) Horologium t-c 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, June 16 is not ready for archiving yet. The "Wikipedians by political ideology" categories and the subcategories of :Category:Wikipedians by religion have not yet been emptied and deleted. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: June 13 is also not ready (Category:Wikipedians who visit countries). I'll list them on the working page now. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike that ... those were nominated on June 22. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: June 15 is also not ready for archiving as it requires some merges to be completed (:Category:Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD, :Category:Albanian Wikipedians, and others). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Cutting back on the number of new nominations will slow the rate of growth of the page (which is currently about 440 KB long), but will not result in a noticeable reduction in size for several days. What we really need is a bot to help with the various closures requiring further attention. Manually editing the userboxes usually removes most entries from a category, but it's often not enough to completely empty it. By the way, the acutal archiving takes place by cutting and pasting text to the appropriate archive page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would recommend against placing these two on the page until the DRVs are closed, just to be on the safe side. I wouldn't want to be the one stuck with having to undelete them if they are overturned.--Ramdrake 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: (This may not be the best place to hold this discussion, but it is probably the best place to start it, since it ties directly into this whole section of Wikipedia. I'm open to suggestions on other places it should be discussed, but I'd rather see if my idea has any support or any feasibility before bringing it up at, say, the village pump.)
Almost all of the categories that are being run through the UCfD gantlet are categories for which a userbox exists, and many of them appear to have been created with the userbox. My proposal is to remove/transclude categories from ALL userboxen, and then hold some formalized discussion on which categories should be allowed to be re-appended to them. My suggestions would be ISO-defined languages, Wikipedians by location (most likely national or continental in scope; the rest can be expressed through userboxen),and WikiProject affiliation. I'm sure that there are others that should be included, but those three are pretty key categories that are probably not going to be terribly contentious with which to start. Others can be discussed in the UCfD forum, or possibly a new section (User categories for addition). 
By severing the ties between the userbox and the category, there are probably an enormous number of categories that will be totally depopulated, which would imply that nobody who does not use the userbox is in the category. Many of the objections to category deletion are "I don't like userboxen"; if a category is empty after the userbox is dissociated, then obviously there is little to no interest in the category outside the userbox itself. Empty categories are speedy deletion candidates under the current rules, which would allow for mass deletion of categories that probably are added to a user page once though a box and then forgotten. My proposal is basically a reversal of the current process, where categories are added through userbox creation and then there is a struggle to remove them; my proposal would move the justification to the editor who wants to add new cats via a userbox.
I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative, but I think the current process is dysfunctional and in need of revision. This is just one editor's suggestion, and I'm curious to see if I am alone in thinking this way.
Horologium t-c 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea; however, it may happen that a user has chosen to be in the category indepently from wanting the userbox on their page. To resolve that, once a usercat has been dissociated from the userbox, a bot should put a message on the affected users' talk pages telling them what happened, and that they can rejoin the category if they so wish (giving them a decent amount of time to do so - one to two weeks should be enough). Then we take a look at the user categories where the users haven't bothered to rejoin, and those can be speedied in all confidence. How does that sound?--Ramdrake 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good idea. It will allow those who don't have an intense dislike for userboxen to affirm their support. (I fall into that group; I have exactly 11 userboxes on my page, of which only five add user cats—four, once the category deletion for the Political Compass deletion is approved. Of those four, one is for my language, one is for location (United States) and two are not coverered—:Category:Wikipedians in Florida and :Category:Wikipedian military people, both of which I consider expendable, although I'd like a group for my involvement in the Florida Wikiproject). Is that something that a bot can be directed to do? I don't know the full capabilities of the various bots editors have developed.Horologium t-c 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am undecided on the merits of Hologrium's proposal (although I'm wary of the extra bureaucracy it requires), but I don't think notification is necessary or desirable. User categories aren't that important as to require spamming the talk pages of tens of thousands of affected users. We don't even have a formal notification process to inform editors when an article they've authored has been proposed for deletion! I don't view the current system to be broken and expect this upsurge of nominations to expire soon as most user categories (by interest, by location, by Wikipedia status/collaboration, by profession) are generally considered valid. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree wholeheatedly with this proposal. If a user adds a userbox with an associated category to their user page they are adding the category. I think a more apt solution would be including discussion on deleting the userbox associated with the category and the category. That way, any of the users who want to be identified by a userbox might actually fight for it. As opposed to decoupling them so as to delete vast numbers of popular categories without the knowledge and/or support of those in the categories. I would sooner support a proposal which would actually notify Users in a given category of its impending deletion. Adam McCormick 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea.  I see a few minor problems, but nothing that can't be worked out.  --Kbdank71 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a good idea at first. The ravel of user categories often comes from templates but in general we abstractedly omit them. Sometimes the category is populated due to the userbox, not the cat itself. People add userboxes to their userpages without awareness of automatically categorizing themselves. I'm a bit in favor of the solution of notification-delivering bot but another trouble arouses as the category is excessively heavy-populated, which leads to spamming talkpages. The idea of deleting both userbox and category will cause more trouble, since we have  to add double notification that "The discussion for userbox is on WP:MFD/Blah blah" and "The discussion for category is on WP:UCFD/Blah blah. Also, users will find it annoying and reluctantly take part in MFD since the problem lies on the cat, not the ubox. Maybe we should let it the way it is. Another idea: should we add restriction to userbox policy, like "only add category to userbox in case the category is considered to be relevant on Wikipedia..."? AW 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not talking about deleting any userboxes; I wasn't around for the Kelly Martin userbox eradication event, but I have read all about it. I don't hate userboxes, as (for the most part, at least) they stay on userpages. (I even have some on my userpage, although not to the extent that some editors have done.) My objection is to the insane overcategorization that occurs when people add  new categories to every userbox they create, or add multiple categories to a userbox, which clogs up the categorization system. I am all for restricting the userbox category: That is primarily what this proposal is about. Horologium t-c 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's so very easy to slap on a category to a userbox, I don't know that a relatively unknown approval process will have a significant effect. Given the extra bureaucracy involved in creating and maintaining such a process (in addition to WP:UCFD, I think it's probably not worth it. I think a few edit summaries of "removing user categorisation per UCFD consensus" (when applicable, of course) should suffice to send a message to editors who create userbox categories. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A radical proposal 

message: Is there a specific convention for how to handle speedy nominations on this page? If not, I propose that we treat them as CFD does: take care of and remove them from the UCFD page 48 hours after the nomination if no one objects. Comments? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me; I was wondering how it was going to be handled. On a related note, I discovered that there is no template for speedy deletion of user cats; there is only one for speedy renames. Consequently, I have not added a tag to my speedy deletion request for the empty cat, since there is no tag to use. Am I missing something? Horologium t-c 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is probably good enough, especially since there aren't that many speedy nominations of user categories. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added that template. It's not quite the same thing, but the note I left in the talk page should make it clear that it is a speedy.Horologium t-c 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy nominations 

message: There are many user categories that also display as subcategories of themselves (see, for instance, :Category:Wikipedians interested in Hinduism, which I just created to divert users from :Category:Hindu Wikipedians to a more useful category). How is it possible to remove that self-subcategorisation while still transcluding the userbox (to allow for easier updating)? I know this may not be the best place to ask, but I'm hoping someone will know. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Along the same lines, what needs to be done to eliminate bizarre crosses like this: Because of this userbox (), on this page (:Category:Wikipedians in the United States), :Category:Wikipedians in the United States, a subcat of :Category:Wikipedians by location is also in :Category:American Wikipedians, a subcat of :Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. It's the ONLY category in the ethnicity cat that also loads the location cats, and I am almost positive it is because that userbox adds both :Category:Wikipedians in the United States and :Category:American Wikipedians. Short of altering the userbox, is there any way to separate the two? Horologium t-c 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of transcluding it, I would subst: the userbox and remove the category. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the userbox is substed, future changes to it will not be reflected in the version on the category page. Of course, that's a relatively minor problem (after all, these are just userboxes). One thing to be careful about when substing is whether the userbox contains a fair use image as such images may not be used in non-mainspace pages. Anyway, I'll subst it. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also alter the userbox to only add the category to pages in the userspace. VegaDark (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How would one do that? Black Falcon (Talk) 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the exact code, it is somewhat complicated, but I've seen it done before.  Someone did it on Template:Taxobox, I believe, if you want to try and figure it out. VegaDark (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested assistance at the help desk (see here for the discussion) and have received a promising response. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the issue is fixed. See . -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If the userbox you are subst'ing has a fair use image, remove the FUI from the template per WP:FU and then subst away. No non-mainspace template should have a fair use image, and even then it is debatably wrong to have a FUI on a template. BigNate37(T) 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, of course. I just meant someone should always check before substing so that the problem is not spread around. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend putting the <includeonly> tags outside the #ifeq, for one less check. For the categories themselves, feel free to use the convenient , which will also un-self-categorize from userboxes that use the nocat parameter to hide the category (can be updated to use #ifeq, of cocurse). –Pomte 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories that are subcategories of themselves 

message: I'm thinking of whipping up a new userbox, one that automatically categorizes users into :Category:Wikipedians interested in joining categories. What do you think? :P BigNate37(T) 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be a subcategory of :Category:Uncategorised Wikipedians or :Category:Insufficiently categorised Wikipedians? ;) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Wikipedians by interest, naturally. That appears to be the new catchall cruft category. :\ Horologium t-c 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Uncategorised Wikipedians.  Now that's funny.  --Kbdank71 14:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking of a userbox 

message: I recently encountered a user category that needs to be renamed and made a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, but do not know what the new name should be. There are currently 486 subcategories of :Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, but there is no clear naming convention for them. There are two formats, neither of which is dominant:
#:Category:WikiProject X members – 236 subcats (48.6%)
#:Category:WikiProject X participants  – 250 subcats (51.4%)
Before someone tags over 200 pages for renaming, I propose that we arrive at a standard naming convention for subcategories of the category. Which is better: "members" or "participants"? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've seen this debate before. I would suggest using "members" because "participants" implies a continuing activity level that may or may not exist. Members implies the one-time effort to join the group, with no further activity required. Judging by the activity level in some of the groups (or lack thereof), passivity is the rule and not the exception. Horologium t-c 11:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for a convention. See /Archive 3#Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, 2 sections below that, and the UCFD. –Pomte 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ... I think I'll follow your comment in that thread: "It's trivial and different projects may decide on different category names." I suppose there's no point spending time on this. As for the one mistitled user cat ... I'll nominate it for renaming if the WikiProject survives (it's purpose has been questioned and the project contains only 2 members). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for Wikipedians by WikiProject categories 

message: Please extrapolate each day's listings into a one-day log file, the way the rest of the XfDs do. Otherwise, this XfD is not compatible with Wikipedia:Deletion today and can only be given as a link instead of a transclude. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people use Wikipedia:Deletion today, and do they want arguably the least productive deletion process clogging up that already massive page? –Pomte 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been following xFD for ages now, and I just found out it existed by this topic. Although, I agree converting the format would be nice, as our current method of archiving is less than ideal, considering the increased traffic we've seen as of late. ^demon[omg plz] 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pomte. There isn't enough traffic on UCfD and the pages involved aren't important enough to justify daily logs. Check the archives and you will find times where there wasn't a single new nomination for weeks (e.g., early June). The upsurge in nominations that we saw in the latter part of June is exhibiting a clear a downward trend, with a number of days in July seeing only one nomination. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What harm can you possibly see it doing?  If you really think this won't work, an alternative would be to have all of the nominations and their date headings in a transclude, without the page introductory and see-also material; or even noinclude those parts.  Just some way to make this work with WP:DELT. Oh, as for WP:DELT being "clogged" with UCfD's, the point of DELT is to list all of the deletion debates (period).  It would be Wikipedia:Some but not all deletions today otherwise.  The "clog" factor won't matter; I'll be installing show/hide code shortly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I seem to be doing most of the closing and archiving on UCFD these days.  I have no objection to going to a page per day format.  It would reduce the time spent archiving and would also make it easier to link to the discussions in edit summaries and deletion logs, since the discussions would no longer move to the archive, just stay on the page.  My only concern is that a) there are periods when this xFD will go silent for a time, but as noted, there is no harm in that and b) I don't really want to take the time to set this all up right now myself. I think there is more value in fixing MFD first, but this could probably be done also. --After Midnight 0001 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Deletion today]] compatibility fix 

message: What would be the appropriate merge target for :Category:User Wikitext? Is it :Category:User html? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Wikitext. - jc37 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ... I didn't realise that it was distinct from HTML. Thanks for the link. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:User Wikitext 

message: I've encountered a number of language categories that are empty save for one or more userboxes. I don't mean that merely the category for one level (e.g. User en-3) is empty, but rather that the entire category structure contains no actual users. See, for instance, :Category:User gil (Gilbertese language) and :Category:User sg (Sango language). Is it worth nominating/deleting these (any deletion would, of course, be without prejudice to recreation)? They are technically valid categories except for the fact that they serve no real purpose and only create clutter in :Category:Wikipedians by language. It seems to me that some of these may have been created preemptively ... something which I think should be discouraged. Any thoughts on the matter? One possibility that came to mind was to speedily delete these categories (per CSD G6) without altering the templates; that way, when someone uses the template, the category will show up on Special:Wantedcategories and will be recreated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only disadvantage to deleting properly categorized languages is the potential for creation of improperly categorized languages, using the (now available) letter combination. Other than that, I don't see why not. Horologium t-c 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty language categories 

message: Can someone please look at ?  From a quick glance, I think that this is preventing the emptying of the Latn categories and I can't afford any more time right now to sort it out. --After Midnight 0001 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the key is in editing Template:User iso15924/name to remove the row for "Latn". However, I'm not sure what that will do to the userboxes. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, I think that it is in  where is coded  just before the bottom.  If "Latn" is passed in as the parameter, it is going to categorize it as such.  Whatever is in that parameter will result in a category.  You should be able to test it by placing  on a test page. --After Midnight 0001 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latn