Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 31 August 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Speedy nominations

If you have a legitimate candidate for speedy rename/merge/delete, place them here instead of under the date.
If something listed here is not a clear case for speedy, please re-list under the current date.

New nominations by date

Please list new nominations at the top of the list for today's date.

August 30

Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats

Being a member of a particular high school does not inherently foster contribution. The social networking aspect of it is not something to be desired by our user category system. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nomination includes the following subcategories:

Category:Vector graphics editors (users)

Rename to Wikipedians who use vector graphics editors, Wikipedian vector graphics editors, Wikipedians who edit vector graphics, or similar. ×Meegs 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who edit vector graphics seems like the best choice. — The Storm Surfer 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

Category:User blz and subcats

Suggest Merge Category:User blz, Category:User blz-1, Category:User blz-2, Category:User blz-3, and Category:User blz-5 to Category:Wikipedians interested in heraldry, a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for users who speak Blazon, which is not a language so much as a jargon, relating to heraldry. It's a set of highly structured rules for describing heraldic coats of arms or flags, rather than an actual language. Additionally, "blz" is the ISO 639 classification for Balanktak, which is (yet another) Indonesian language which does not yet have a Wikipedia article. Suggest merging all of these cats into one category and moving it into Category:Wikipedians by interest, which is a more appropriate target than the languages section.

Merge, as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Category:Wikipedians who speak Blazon~~ Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon per Blazon. (Or perhaps Wikipedians who understand Blazon.) This is more specific than just an interest in heraldry. - jc37 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [Modified target per discussion below.] - jc37 10:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had suggested the broader scope to potentially increase the collaborative potential of the category. It is likely that all of the members of this group also share an interest in heraldry; however, there might be editors who are interested in heraldry without sharing the more narrow interest in blazon. There is no current category for heraldry in Wikipedia (I looked before I suggested creating a new category), so slightly widening the scope of the topic increases potential interest without making it too diffuse to be useful. Horologium t-c 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. My main concern is from recalling a mess we had when deleting the zodiac cats. We should try to avoid miscategorising users when renaming. And I can imagine an argument that understanding Blazon does not necessarily equal being interested in heraldry in general. - jc37 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure that whatever the target cat is named, that it not include the word "speak", as it will open the door to move it back into the language cat. "Understand" is only a little better, for the same reason. I suggested "interested in" as that is the convention for all of the subcats in Category:Wikipedians by interest, which seems (to me) to be the logical place to move it. If you like Category:Wikipedians interested in Blazon, which sounds clunky to me, I'll support it, but my first choice remains the heraldry cat I suggested. Horologium t-c 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree that we shouldn't use "speak". I would prefer Wikipedians who understand... for the "almost language" cats, such as glyphs, writing systems, jargon, dialects, and such. I used to lean towards use, and even recently have wavered between use and understand, but understand seems the clearest and most precise. - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep. "speak" doesn't bother me, as it is possible to speak the descriptions aloud, but any other term would do. DGG (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ----- relisting to try to get consensus on the new name[reply]

Comment - Ok, as I said above, I prefer Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon. I agree with the concern about using "speak", and I oppose the use of "heraldry", and also oppose "interested in". - jc37 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can support Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon, provided it is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. My suggestion would to be to move it into Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics (a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by interest, my original suggestion), but it really doesn't belong in the languages section. Its vocabulary consists entirely of words from other languages (primarily French), and it is not possible to carry out a conversation using it, essentially failing it as a language; that is why I nominated it for a rename and move in the first place. Horologium t-c 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon per Jc37 and relocate to Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics per Horologium. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Wikipedians by language interest might be more appropriate, or even Category:Wikipedians by constructed language (or both). But where it goes is less important than the target name atm. In any case, I agree that it shouldn't be directly in Category:Wikipedians by language. - jc37 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

Category:Wikipedians who support Crewe Alex

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support Crewe Alex to Category:Wikipedian Crewe Alexandra F.C. fans

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Category:Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion

Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is counterproductive to encourage the formation of formal factions around points of disagreement. This category does not foster collaboration and there is no reason someone would need to browse through it. Editors who disagree with the current deletion policy and process should present their arguments to the community at the appropriate place (Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion process).

Please note that this discussion is not about censoring dissent or anything of that sort. Editors are welcome to dissent all they want on their userpages and on appropriate discussion pages (the village pump, policy talk pages, user talk pages, and so on).

Please also note precedents for deleting similar categories here, here, here, here, here and here. There is also ample precedent for deleting any "support/oppose" and "for/against" categories (see e.g. here, here, here, here and here).

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's basically a petition, not a category. There are better ways to do that. - Richfife 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Linked article is to a meta discussion that has been around for years, and will never become policy. Divisive. Horologium t-c 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all three of the above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - This doesn't a support/oppose a current policy, and it's a semi-active discussion. (As opposed to the several discussions linked in the nom for examples.) I think using a category for an active discussion should be fine. It would be hard to argue how this doesn't facilitate collaboration, as we do collaborate on policies and such. The reason for the Weak keep however, is that the discussion is only semi-active, and could almost be tagged [[tl|historical}}. - jc37 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took another look at the article linked by the cat (Pure wiki deletion). The last edit to that page was in July 2006, so it's not really even semi-active at this point. (The last comment on the talk page was in April 2007). More relevant to this community, however, is the link at the top of the article page, to en:Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system, which is a Rejected Proposal. (Discussion there was much more active and recent, ending when the discussion was marked as rejected in June 2007.) Without getting into a debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of this proposal, it was rejected, and having a category of users who support a rejected proposal seems (to me) to be both pointless and unnecessarily divisive. The userbox is sufficient to express support of the issue. (One can construct an argument that it too is divisive, but this is not the appropriate forum to discuss deletion of the userbox.) Horologium t-c 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete, since the page has been inactive for a few months. (I might dispute the "rejected" tag, but that would be about the page, not the category.) - jc37 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :{{lc|Vector graphics editors (users)}}
 Rename to  ''Wikipedians who use vector graphics editors'', ''Wikipedian vector graphics editors'', ''Wikipedians who edit vector graphics'', or similar. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
+*''Wikipedians who edit vector graphics'' seems like the best choice.  — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 === August 29 ===