Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jc37 (talk | contribs) at 09:55, 30 April 2007 (High school categories - closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Cfdu-header

Closing

For instructions on closing debates see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User.

Speedy Nominations

New Nominations by Date

April 29

Administrators by country

To put it simply, subcategorizing national user categories based upon who among them is an admin is bad idea. As Jimbo himself said, "Adminship is no big deal." While the main administrators category is meant to facilitate finding an admin, these categories do nothing but elevate adminship above other users and make it look like a big deal, which is a Bad Thing. I foresee that some will say "but they facilitate collaboration." No, in fact, they don't (or, at least, they shouldn't). There is no reason whatsoever that a Canadian admin is any better suited to using his/her administrator tools on a Canada-related article than a Peruvian or Czech one is; in fact, in certain situations, it may be the opposite. We should delete these categories because they serve to divide Wikipedia between admins and non-admins. Picaroon (Talk) 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as overcategorization of a group that should be treated as a single worldwide group. Those who are really interested can find the intersection between Category:Wikipedia administrators and the various Category:Wikipedians by location. –Pomte 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Picaroon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe the point of creating them initially was something like 'If X is in Category:Australian Wikipedia administrators, X will possibly be online at such and such time, and therefore be able to help me'. However, we seem to be a big bunch of insomniacs, so I don't think that really works :) Also useless for people like myself who identify as bi-national and have been placed in two categories. So, delete per nom. – Riana 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're certainly right about that - these categories are more geared towards providing user information than being used for collaboration. As to finding someone who is awake and therefore able to help, the deletion and block logs will do that. Picaroon (Talk) 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, that's definitely more efficient. – Riana 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An excellent argument for deletion; I came here thinking I'd !vote "Keep". ;) EVula // talk // // 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "Wikipedia administrators" category is good enough. I don't care where an administrator is from as long as they can help me if I need their assistance. Acalamari 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of many cases where I might want an editor of a certain nationality, so don't nominate those categories, but there are no cases in which someone should specifically want an admin of a certain nationality. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep precisely per Amarkov's argument: I want to be able to find an admin of a certain nationality to help identify vandalism that might be specific to such a nationality. In addition, I can't see any way that including this hurts the project, yet plenty of ways that it could help. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Finding an admin comes from a specific country means being able to find an admin who may know something about national issues of that country - to identify hoaxes, inaccurate statements etc. Od Mishehu 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you need an admin to do that? Many non-admins are just as capable of providing such assistance. VegaDark 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#Intersection by location. While I understand the concern of having someone who may know something about the topic, that's pretty much nullified, since we also have Wikipedian location cats. - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming

This is clearly a NOT category, which is prohibited by precedence based on previous user categories. Why deny fact, anyway?

  • Delete as nominator.--WaltCip 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. YechielMan 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category does not help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a "not" category. Not useful. 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 28

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in film

As you can see, this category needs an overhaul. I have proposed we delete categories that are based on a single film, as categories used to collaborate on one (or very few) pages are not helpful enough to justify their existance, and if we allowed that we would allow a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles. I have also proposed a rename for each category I don't think is too narrow for collaborative purposes, in order for them to have more encyclopedic names. "Who likes" does not really imply that someone wants to collaborate on the articles, "interested" is much better in that regard, and I think we should try to convert all other "who likes" categories to "interested" in the future. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual film categories

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least 3 - There are a number of Phantom of the Opera, {{High School Musical}} and {{Blade Runner}} articles. These can be renamed to clarify that the users are interested in the series in general, but that is implied. Also, I reject the collaboration argument because there's a sense that it is irrelevant at WT:UCFD. –Pomte 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Else this category would eventually encompass every movie ever made. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual fims which have sequels

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Films by director

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? How is "Wikipedians who like" better than "Wikipedians interested in" in terms of encyclopedic use? I like thousands of things, but I am not interested in collaborating on all of them. Naming categories as "who like" invites people to join the category for the sake of being in the category, not for collaboration, and I do believe all need to be changed from this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you do, and it's a point that you and I disagree on. As I've mentioned elsewhere (including the talk page) I think that the user categories are useful for more than direct collaborative use. I could mention a recent quote from User:Jimbo Wales, which states something similar, but considering how his quotes were (in my opinion) taken out of context in userbox discussions, I'll avoid quoting him now. (Besides, as he often states, in cases such as these, he prefers to be "just another editor".) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Books and films

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself. And in some of the cases above, the books are more famous, or at least equally as famous as the film. Then there are other marketing tie ins, such as toys, comic books, and so on. All of which have the potential for articles. (Imagine: Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse.) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I don't see how my proposed renames would affect that? I specifically didn't add films at the end of the name because of this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I was supporting not adding something like "films and media" or whatever, while still opposing "interested in". - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Films by film series

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monty python films

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). Weakly opposing the addition of "films and media". By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself (see Star Wars above). But in this case, consider that this category has the related idea that it's like Wikipedians who like the Muppets. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "interested in" as a worse, impersonal, generic, ambiguous name. I am very interested in Monty Python films for some convoluted personal reasons but I haven't seen any in full and so I don't know anything about them to contribute significantly to their articles. To like something, you at least should know some substantial information about it. Those who dislike them are also interested, but are less likely to contribute in a well manner. As long as we have user categories, which do not facilitate collaboration but rather build a sense of community, there is nothing wrong with grouping those who like a certain thing that is unlikely to cause conflict. –Pomte 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we presume that these comments refer to all the film discussions above in regards to the "inetrested in" renames? - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Category:Life path

Category:1stian Wikipedians

No article on 1stian, and therefore no indication that categorizing by this could help facilitate collaboration in any way. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Insert here some joke about 42, 47, or any other pop cultural number.) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AOL users

Needs an indication that it is a user category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anonymous Wikipedians

Can't possibly categorize all IP address contributors, and even if we could, why? VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for those who make significant contributions from one IP. Why not? This is more interesting to browse through than most if not all other categories. –Pomte 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - There are Wikipedians who choose to edit from IP alone. Perhaps the category introduction should be clarified. (Perhaps select some arbitrary minimum number of edits for inclusion?) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jc37 and Pomte. bibliomaniac15 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are addicted to the Rayados del Monterrey

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who support Rayados del Monterrey Not correct with the other categories requires renaming.

April 27

Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment and all subcategories

12 categories are not needed for the potential to collaborate on a single article. All of these need to be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, or deleted. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or delete all as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a role playing game - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. But remember that Wikipedia is an MMORPG. –Pomte 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not for Wikipedia. Xiner (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I was all set to defend these, but after thinking about it, I can't really come up with a justification. It's something like "religion for the nonreligious," but that's so spongy it hardly counts. So go ahead and cut them. I am opposed to the merge to "who play D&D," because it's possible to adopt the alignment system in life without having any attachment to D&D as it is written.--Mike Selinker 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal wikipedians

No reason for Wikipedians to ever go searching through this category for any reason that could help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ask them if they want to be in Category:Furry Wikipedians (doubt it). –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I'm not really sure if there's anything else that needs to be said. The category only contains two users, as well. --Coredesat 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - seems to just be a variation on Category:Furry Wikipedians, but not sure, since it's so vague (which is another reason to delete...) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian fans of Obi-Wan Kenobi

Too specific for collaboration. There are thousands of Star Wars characters, we don't need to have a category for each one. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who watch LazyTown

Beyond Good & Evil categories

No articles on IRIS Network or Alpha section. Looks to be factions in the video game Beyond Good & Evil. No reason to categorize past the parent category, as it would be far too specific and would not facilitate collaboration further. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users with OTRS access

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians with OTRS access. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The category needs to be populated; see list at m:OTRS. –Pomte 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Users to Wikipedians. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Fast Food

Who cares who "likes fast food"? Knowing who enjoys the tase of a particular type of food is not something we need to categorize. At minimum needs a rename to be more encyclopedic, and for proper capitalization. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food topics if no consensus to delete, as nominator ("Interested in fast food", by itself, still seems unencyclopedic. Adding "topics" at the end implies more than just the food, such as restaraunts, health issues, etc.). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename looks like a very good idea, reinforcing writing of encyclopedic articles - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is automatically generated from the UBX's and we don't want to have to have non-existent categories on userpages. --98E 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we remove it from the userbox and voila!, no non-existant categories on userpages. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not rename, because there is no evidence that the members of the category are interested in fast food topics. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have a fast food UBX on their page then there IS proof. --98E 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little collaborative potential. Xiner (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per David Gerard. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not rename. The intent of "interested in" in this case is in consumption, not collaboration : ) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga

April 24

Category:Wikipedians who have written an AP Exam

Wikipedians who Support/Oppose X to Wikipedians interested in X

High school categories

Category:Commons users

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and should be merged there. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bryce users

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by software. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who have the Ben Bulben award

Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins

Category:Myself Wikipedian

Category:Wikipedians formerly in Munich

Category:Wikipedians who are one of an infinite number of monkeys

Category:Wikipedians who survived Hurricane Katrina

Category:Users who read Milenio Diario on a regular basis

Category:Wikipedians who have been hacked on Habbo Hotel

Category:User uz-0

Category:Wikipedian /b/tards

Wikipedians by former religion

Pokémon Collaborative Project members

April 23

Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists

Category:User standards compliant

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY

Category:Fwarn recipients