Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User
Closing
For instructions on closing debates see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User.
Speedy Nominations
New Nominations by Date
April 29
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)
- Delete of course. YechielMan 17:32, 29 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)
Individual film categories
- Delete - not enough articles for such users to collaborate on to justify this specific of a subcategory - VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Phantastic Wikipedians - Apparently this is a category for Phantom of the Opera fans.
- Category:Wikipedians who like 300
- Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner
- Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project
- Category:Wikipedians who like Dr. Strangelove
- Category:Wikipedians who like High School Musical
- Category:Wikipedians who like Magnolia
- Category:Wikipedians who like Memento
- Category:Wikipedians who like Mrs. Doubtfire
- Category:Wikipedians who like Spaceballs - But, might I add, is one of the best movies ever.
- Category:Wikipedians who like The Rocky Horror Picture Show
- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete - Else this category would eventually encompass every movie ever made. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Individual fims which have sequels
- Delete - not enough articles for such users to collaborate on to justify this specific of a subcategory (I would be open to the possibility for a category that would also include its sequel, though) - VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Films by director
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Ralph Bakshi films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ralph Bakshi films
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Stanley Kubrick films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Stanley Kubrick films
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like David Lynch films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in David Lynch films
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Ed Wood films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ed Wood films
- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Books and films
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like James Bond - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond (This category is for more than just films)
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Narnia - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia (looks to be a category for the books as well)
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars
- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Films by film series
- Rename Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ghostbusters films and media (film or films? What I have sounds wrong but I think it is grammatically correct)
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Matrix series
- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Monty python films
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python to Category:Wikipedians interested in Monty Python films and media (Couldn't think of a better name that would also include the TV show - feel free to come up with one)
- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
April 28
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)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (Insert here some joke about 42, 47, or any other pop cultural number.) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Needs an indication that it is a user category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't possibly categorize all IP address contributors, and even if we could, why? VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who support Rayados del Monterrey Not correct with the other categories requires renaming.
- Rename As nominator.Tellyaddict 12:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedian Rayados del Monterrey fans or to Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
April 27
Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment and all subcategories
- Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment
- Category:Alignmentless Wikipedians
- Category:Chaotic Evil Wikipedians
- Category:Chaotic Good Wikipedians
- Category:Chaotic Neutral Wikipedians
- Category:Lawful Evil Wikipedians
- Category:Lawful Good Wikipedians
- Category:Lawful Neutral Wikipedians
- Category:Neutral Evil Wikipedians
- Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians
- Category:True Neutral Wikipedians
- Category:Undecided Alignment Wikipedians
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)
- Merge or delete all as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a role playing game - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. But remember that Wikipedia is an MMORPG. –Pomte 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all Not for Wikipedia. Xiner (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and ask them if they want to be in Category:Furry Wikipedians (doubt it). –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. bibliomaniac15 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. YuanchosaanSalutations! 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Beyond Good & Evil categories
- Category:Wikipedians who support the Alpha Section
- Category:Wikipedians who support the IRIS Network
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)
- Upmerge both to Category:Wikipedians who play Beyond Good & Evil as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom as too specific. –Pomte 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- UpMerge per nom. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians with OTRS access. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. The category needs to be populated; see list at m:OTRS. –Pomte 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy rename Users to Wikipedians. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Rename looks like a very good idea, reinforcing writing of encyclopedic articles - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Then we remove it from the userbox and voila!, no non-existant categories on userpages. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- If they have a fast food UBX on their page then there IS proof. --98E 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Little collaborative potential. Xiner (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per David Gerard. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete do not rename. The intent of "interested in" in this case is in consumption, not collaboration : ) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga
April 24
Judging by the userbox this category is associated with, it is for people who have taken the exam, not written it, in which case it has no encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are a lot of articles in Category:Advanced Placement for them to write on after becoming familiar with the exams. –Pomte 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)- Many people took AP exams in high school, myself included. I think it is an large logical leap to conculde that people who took AP exams would somehow be more interested in collaborating on anything in that category, and writing based on one's personal experience taking exams would be original research. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as it is highly unlikely that the users will collaborate on these articles. –Pomte 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete In British English, this name refers to those who have taken the (American) exam. Confusing. Xiner (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians who Support/Oppose X to Wikipedians interested in X
See previous UCFD discussions here and here (the first one) on the subject.
There was a strong consensus in these previous discussions that these categories are unencyclopedic and should be merged/renamed to Wikipedians interested in X. The logic was that the "interested in" categories could promote collaboration, whereas support/opponse ones are inflammatory and without purpose. There are tons of these at Category:Wikipedians by politics. Oren0 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with nom and reasons for it. Somehow, though, I'm not sure some of the members would be happy with it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but I'd like to see every category that would be affected for the chance that some exceptions may be necessary (although I can't think of any offhand). VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This may or may not be more complex than it may appear. But sidestepping that for the moment, I would like this to be a more specific nomination, than just a vague suggestion of what categories are included. Are we discussing any category which someone somewhere thinks is such a cat? Or just all the cats under Category:Wikipedians by politics? I think for now, we should just start with the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by politics. And, since this has been so controversial in the past, they should each be tagged. As an aside, I wish that this nomination would have waited until a much more inclusive discussion could have been nominated (see the talk page to get a hint of what I mean), but I suppose that's moot atm. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I brought this up improperly. The consensuses at both discussions linked were nearly unanimous and the admins at deletion review told me to bring this up as a bulk nomination here. Oren0 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Based on that explanation, I believe that what they were likely suggesting, is to do a "mass-nom" (also known as a group nom). That means to do what you did above, but every category that you wish to have changed (renamed, deleted, merged, etc), needs to be tagged with a banner - such as {{cfd-user}} - to notify all those interested in a discussion about them and then a link to those categories listed with your nomination. Hope this helps. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Xiner (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
High school categories
- Category:Wikipedian high school freshmen
- Category:Wikipedian high school sophomores
- Category:Wikipedian high school juniors
- Category:Wikipedian high school seniors
No benefit to Wikipedia from categorizing users this specifically that I can think of. Seems like overcatigorization, and I think all should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedian high school students. Also I should add that there have previously been concerns on having categories specifically for minors, and everyone not a senior generally are. Merging would hopefully avoid this issue alltogether. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator's above arguments. Colonel Tom 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom.Barfbagger 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete any and all high school student categories, merge if no consensus to delete. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please link any previous consensus on deleting categories for minors. I only know of WP:KIDS which didn't have consensus. –Pomte 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never did I state there was a consensus to delete such categories, I simply stated there were concerns on having such categories. In either case, I stand by my first point as the primary reason to merge these categories, I was simply mentioning the second point for an added incentive. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator. We're not government. High school students have a right to be responsible for themselves - if they have an account, they exist, and therefore have an age - QED. By not giving them a category, we risk ad hominem.--WaltCip 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and should be merged there. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reverse merge as creator - this version Category:Commons users is quite a bit shorter. Perhaps I should have proposed that Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons be renamed to Category:Commons users before I created Category:Commons users. — Jeff G. 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Users" goes against the user category naming convention of "Wikipedians". VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Barfbagger 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
- Rename as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom.Barfbagger 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename, possibly speedy. Don't think it's controversial... Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense category. "This user potato skins". Wha? Is this supposed to mean "This user skins potatos? Either way, unencyclopedic category, and needs a rename at the very least. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Potato skins, and presumably Tato Skins, also (your guess is as good as mine). I am a little confused by the recent application of "unencyclopedic" to user categories – it's a bit like calling user pages "unenyclopedic", and you might as well delete all of them in that case. It does seem to have no useful purpose. Furthermore, it is only used on one page, which is generally a better indicator of a category's usefulness than an arbitrary "encyclopedicness" standard – Gurch 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my userbox, when you place an emotion in the piped part of the userbox transclusion, it forwards it into the userbox, so if I put {{User:Rugby471/Userboxes/potatoes|hate}}, it would give you
This user hate potato skins |
. This is not a nosence category, and if you delete it why are you not deleting the other hunderds of userboxes? Rugby471 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I could, I would... – Gurch 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a strong supporter of userboxes in general, I think I can get away with saying that you just made me make a spit take of laughter. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the red box at the top of the page. Your userbox will be kept, this discussion is only regarding the category. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename This is overcategorization. This usercat is obviously for people interested in potatoes, and should say so. Xiner (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Not" categories are not useful and too general. However, I agree that "unencyclopedic" is not an argument for deletion of user categories. Despite what VD says. Barfbagger 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Why delete any user category that doesn't fall afoul of some other policy. They're not hurting anything, and deleting them is alienating people. Very, very few user categories aid in collaboration, so this mania for deleting some unencyclopedic categories and not others is just an abritrary way to upset contributors. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per agreeing with previous discussions: in the case of food categories, the userbox is enough. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I only realised that just now ... Rugby471 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per VegaDark, nonsense category.Tellyaddict 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
How many cities are there in the world? That would be the answer as to how many categories we would allow to be created if this were kept. I don't want to see a "formerly in" category for countries, let alone cities. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Munich. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename This is similar to usercats that say a user's been to a certain U.S. state. Who cares? Xiner (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If they come from Munich fine then say so. If I listed all the cities I was formerly in it would require an almost immediate archival.Barfbagger 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The suggested rename may leave us in a situation where Wikipedians are inappropriately categorised. It is better to delete than to rename and thereby foster inaccuracy. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- A delete is fine by me. VegaDark 09:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we want a "who survived" category for every disaster, natural or otherwise? Furthermore, this is an all-inclusive category, as almost the entire population of Earth survived Hurricane Katrina (the category doesn't specify you had to be at risk in order to be in the category). VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - I survived Katrina, safe in Australia. I've also survived every other natural disaster since my birth, as have you, gentle reader. Not a useful category. Colonel Tom 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well actually, I made the category for those in New Orleans who have been hit bad. I should have been more specific. |: --Xxhopingtearsxx 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously intended for those in the area, possible renaming might be nice. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - all-inclusive. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I think the intended scope is pretty obvious, and don't see anyone categorizing themselves under it just for spite and semantics. There are a lot of articles and images in Category:Hurricane Katrina to collaborate on. On the other hand, "Wikipedians interested in Hurricane Katrina" would be all-inclusive as it received such massive coverage. Other major disasters can have similar categories, why not? –Pomte 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Keep it as a userbox; it'd achieve the same purpose. I will say that the name is not confusing - it's understood what "survived" means here. Xiner (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, contains only one user and this really isn't necessary. A non-categorizing userbox would suffice. --Coredesat 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Although it is a relatively current event, there really isn't any need for this category, where a userbox would serve a better purpose. The scope is too ambiguous.--WaltCip 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially an all-inclusive category. Userbox is enough. —ptk✰fgs 02:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Needs "Wikipedians" instead of "Users", also "on a regular basis" is unnecessary. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand why is it necessary to rename. Hari Seldon 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- User category standard. All categories are named in the same purpose to main consistency and organization throughout the entire encyclopedia.--WaltCip 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, all categories with "Users" in it has been renamed to "Wikipedians", except for babel categories. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Xiner (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Barfbagger 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario per Milenio Diario and convention. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I nominated this for deletion a while back, seen here, but the category became empty during the nomination and was speedy deleted as such. Now it has been recreated, and this isn't technically speedyable since you are only supposed to delete things as a recreation if it still meets the reasons of why it was originally deleted, which this does not since it is not empty. If an admin wants to speedy this since it looks like there would have been a consensus to delete on the original nom, that is fine with me. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete too specific; makes susceptible users easy to identify. –Pomte 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Barfbagger 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as categorising Wikipedians by having had an account "somewhere" hacked would seem to be a bad idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
0-level category, which have all been deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why? i made it 'cause i was born in uzbekistan, so some of my friends could think i know Uzbek Stas 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The userbox is effective in communicating this, which will be kept. Nobody would go looking through a category to find people who don't speak Uzbek, and hence a category is unnecessary, as determined previously for 0-level categories. VegaDark 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - We previously agreed that it should take at least two admins agreeing for speedying due to convention. Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wha? Looks like a subsection of 4chan, no need to categorize past parent category. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who use 4chan. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- /u/pmerge per nom. –Pomte 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The category was created as a subsection because the /b/ board is...erm, a little different when compared to the rest of 4chan, and I felt it needed distinguishing from the rest. Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1453 (UTC)
- Typical /b/ elitist attitude. /po/ and /ck/ and /y/ are more different in a way, and they can't all have subcategories. Although /b/ may be relevant to more people's interests than the others, it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. –Pomte 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- You caught me; I'm an elitist /b/astard with no other agenda than to promote /b/ and scour all mention of any other board from the Interwob.
- However, because this is not the place for drama, and you're obviously entrenched in your opinion anyway, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)
- It also appears there was an AfD on /b/tards, resulting in redirecting it to 4chan. We don't need a category if there is no article on /b/tards. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- True, although the section in the 4chan article is rather sparse at the moment. Someone would, if they had a mind to, use the user category for improving it (although that may fall under WP:CRYSTAL—I'm not entirely sure). Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)
- Delete - categorising by sub-message board? Another not-so-good idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Rule #1 & #2 Aranth 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which "rules" are you referring to? - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians by former religion
- Delete as per below ("not" category"). Both categories created by Andries (talk · contribs). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep as per below. Andries 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- But not everyone who used to belong to a particular religion necessarily does. If you want to collaborate on religions without saying you are a part of that religion, create "interested in" categories, i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in religion, Category:Wikipedians interested in Catholicism, etc. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Everything that you write applies for category:Wikipedians by religion too. Why not delete all those categories and its subcategories e.g. category:Christian Wikipedians and re-name them into Category:Wikipedians interested in religion and category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity? Andries 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd support that. VegaDark 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- And rename category:Canadian Wikipedians into category:Wikipedians interested in Canada I welcome consistency and fairness. Andries 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- We allow for some basic demographic information, which stuff like that falls under, and I'm sure others would argue "by religion" categories fall under that as well (although I personally think "by religion" should be renamed to "interested in", as noted above). VegaDark 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Former religion is also quite basic. Andries 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose the consensus of this UCFD will determine that. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- And rename category:Canadian Wikipedians into category:Wikipedians interested in Canada I welcome consistency and fairness. Andries 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd support that. VegaDark 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Everything that you write applies for category:Wikipedians by religion too. Why not delete all those categories and its subcategories e.g. category:Christian Wikipedians and re-name them into Category:Wikipedians interested in religion and category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity? Andries 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- But not everyone who used to belong to a particular religion necessarily does. If you want to collaborate on religions without saying you are a part of that religion, create "interested in" categories, i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in religion, Category:Wikipedians interested in Catholicism, etc. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I support VegaDark's mass-rename proposal, but think it should be done for all usercats at the same time. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I concede that "former <religion>" may be useful for collaboration, however, so would former residents of some location or former fans of some sports team. I don't think any of these is a good idea to begin categorising by. We would duplicate every sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians. (Formerly interested in television, formerly a cyclist, etc.) I strongly oppose the mass rename suggestion to "interested in". - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians who used to be Catholics
- Delete. We do not need such categories ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep as per below. Andries 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This isn't a "not" usercat. Everyone is not a former Catholic. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Another not category. Personally I don't believe anyone ever escapes anyway. Barfbagger 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but the correct term is "recovering Catholic". This category is not divisive or harmful in any way, but its deletion is harmful. That the category is "non-collaborative" is a silly argument, because almost all user categories are non-collaborative. People don't use user categories to collaborate; we've developed a richly structured system of WikiProjects for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba
- Category:Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Do not think these type of categories are needed. ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Categories category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba and Category:Former_Scientologists, category:former Muslims exists too.
- it is not a "not" category like
category:atheist Wikipedianscategory:non-Catholic Wikipedians Wikipedians]] (not theist) but a "former" category. It cannot be fairly equated to a "not" category like category:Non-Catholic Wikipedians Andries 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)- No really. An atheist is not necessarily a person that once believed in God and now does not, rather, an Atheist is a person that does not believe in God. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree, bad example. Andries 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- it is not a "not" category like
- Keep. If Wikipedians can classify themselves for a particular religion then I think they can also classify themselves for former religions. See category:Wikipedians by former religion Andries 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I know a lot about Catholicism and Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Former_Scientologists, and Category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba are for notable critics, not for Wikipedians. Wikipedian's categories are designed to entice collaboration. These are not "userboxes". You could create Category: Wikipedians interested in Sai Baba, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your proposed alternative category names are somewhat unusual until now. Andries 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am just following common practice pertaining user catgs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Former_Scientologists, and Category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba are for notable critics, not for Wikipedians. Wikipedian's categories are designed to entice collaboration. These are not "userboxes". You could create Category: Wikipedians interested in Sai Baba, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, I know a lot about Catholicism and Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Because being a former one of these seems to be more unusual or notable than say being a former Methodist or something.--T. Anthony 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Different, how? Are we know in the business of making assessments about different religions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's newer and devoted to a living person. Someone who has been a member might have a perspective on this guy that could either be useful or biased, which can matter on articles concerning him. No living Methodist could have known Wesley or the founders of the faith. Granted this could seem like cross-purposes on my placing Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba on CfD. However categories refer to articles, not editors, and are about how Wikipedians choose to identify them. So the potential for misuse is greater. Still maybe I was wrong and if a person wants to identify themselves as a former Methodist that should also be their right. (Although I think that's less useful)--T. Anthony 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Different, how? Are we know in the business of making assessments about different religions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Ex-anythings are not notable. They should say what they are now if they need to express.Barfbagger 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Pokémon Collaborative Project members
April 23
Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists
- Propose renaming Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists to Category:Wikipedian pastafarians
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are referred to as Pastafarians, as per the article. CA387 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I would just like to point out that, should there be a name change, "Pastafarian Wikipedians" would be a much more correct UC name change than "Wikipedian pastafarians".--Ramdrake 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. It doesn't explain much about the context but then I suppose neither does the present name. I favour the change on grounds of simplicity. Sam Blacketer 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename and keep current name as a redirect. As creator of the category, I am of two minds about it: while "Pastafarians" is indeed reported by several sources as being the correct term, I find it less descriptive than its alternatve. Maybe creating a redirect from one of those two names two the other so as to catch both alternatives would be best? I also just wanted to point out this is a user category, not a namespace category.--Ramdrake 12:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned that leaving only the name "Pastafarians" may lead someone to think it's a typo and speedy-merge it with "Rastafarians"... Not good!--Ramdrake 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then should it not be Category:Wikipedian pastafarians? Sam Blacketer 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As it's a user category, then yes. CA387 12:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As, it is a sub of Category:Wikipedians by religion, I used the same naming format as the rest of the sub-categories in this category. The naming style is consistent with all other entries in this category. "Wikipedian pastafarians" would use a different naming style.--Ramdrake 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia:User categories for discussion then?--T. Anthony 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think so.--Ramdrake 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely; move the discussion to WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think so.--Ramdrake 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia:User categories for discussion then?--T. Anthony 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- As, it is a sub of Category:Wikipedians by religion, I used the same naming format as the rest of the sub-categories in this category. The naming style is consistent with all other entries in this category. "Wikipedian pastafarians" would use a different naming style.--Ramdrake 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by religion, and do not leave current name as a redirect, as current name has no indication it is a user category. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agree per VegaDark. --CA387 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could we then have Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians as a redirect? I would like to ensure nobody mistakes "Pastafarians" for a misspelled "Rastafarians"--Ramdrake 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then simply make that clear in the category introduction. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:User standards compliant
- Category:User standards compliant - If kept, it should have a rename to clarify intent. - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to ? - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - There are two things wrong with this category. The first is the name. It starts with "User", making it in the babel category system. This definitely does not need to be in this. Secondly, the category is for users who "believe in compliance with W3C standards". My question is, who cares? Believing that people should comply with W3C standards is not a defining characteristic of users, and we should not group such users together in a category, as it would be useless. What possible article could such users be expected to collaborate on? If kept, needs a rename, but there is no rename that would both be in the spirit of the category creation and be useful for collaboration. VegaDark 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- ??? Shouldn't a lack of consensus over a long period of time default to keep? If not, relist yet again for continuity lest I copy and paste what I typed below in response to VegaDark. –Pomte 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not when a "no consensus" results in keeping a category which still obviously needs a rename at minimum, so I'd support relisting in such cases, or perhaps just being bold and changing it. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Right. No consensus = feel free to re-nominate. I just didn't want to relist again. Multiple relistings tend to lead to confusion. So instead I started semi-fresh with a renomination. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The category population has doubled to 8 since I made it known at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming (though perhaps they found it some other way). They can collaborate on the 61 articles in Category:W3C standards, but I doubt it. Either delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the World Wide Web Consortium under Category:Wikipedians by interest. –Pomte 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY
Category:Fwarn recipients
- Category:Fwarn recipients - Seems unnecessary, and I can't see how this makes anybody's job easier. I do a lot of vandalblocking, and I certainly never patrol this category. – Riana ऋ 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Have to agree with the nominator on this one. I don't see how the category could be of any use unless the category was automatically removed by a bot once 2 hours or so have passed, or once the user has been blocked. That way people could patrol the category for recent vandals who need to be blocked if they vandalize again. But, since that doesn't happen, this category is useless (and even if that did happen, the category would probably need a rename to be more clear). VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete What next, "Third-warning recipients"? Xiner (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
April 22
Category:You forgot Poland
April 21
April 20
April 19
April 17
Even More W b W renaming (Minor cases)
More W b W renaming
You have called {{Contentious topics}}
. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:
Alerting users
- {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
- {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
- {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
- {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
Editnotices
- {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
Talk page notices
- {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
- If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.
Miscellaneous
- {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia. rename all (I changed "Wikiproject Hong Kong" to "WikiProject Hong Kong").--Mike Selinker 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The following cases are the same as discussed in #W b W renaming below:
- Category:Wikipedians participating in Wikiproject Hong Kong -> Category:WikiProject Hong Kong participants
- Category:Wikipedians who are members of WikiProject The Apprentice UK -> Category:WikiProject The Apprentice UK members
- Category:WikiProject Gridiron in Australia Members -> Category:WikiProject Gridiron in Australia members
- Category:WikiProject NCSU Members -> Category:WikiProject NCSU members
- Category:WikiProject That '70s Show Participants -> Category:WikiProject That '70s Show participants
*Category:WikiProject Munich Members -> Category:WikiProject Munich members
Speedy Merge as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraw as cat has been deleted. --NThurston 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom for now, but hopefully we will come to a consensus on a new convention for these soon. VegaDark 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
April 16
Category:Wikipedians who think América is a better team than yours
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Club América
Category:Wikipedian game programmers
Category:Trek DS9 Wikipedians
Category:Trek DS9 Wikipedians
Category:Trek ENT Wikipedians
Category:Trek NF Wikipedians
Category:Trek TAS Wikipedians
Category:Trek TNG Wikipedians
Category:Trek TOS Wikipedians
Category:Trek VOY Wikipedians
April 15
Category:Miscellaneous Wikipedian categories
Category:Wikipedians from the suburbs
Category:Wikipedians who play video games
Category:Wikipedians interested in video games
Category:Wikipedians interested in game development
Category:Healthy Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians with a virus
Category:Wikipedians by collaboration
Category:Wikipedians who use dual monitor configurations
April 14
Category:User standards compliant
April 13
Category:Wikipedians that support Leicester Tigers to Category:Wikipedians who support the Leicester Tigers
April 12
Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen
You have called {{Contentious topics}}
. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:
Alerting users
- {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
- {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
- {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
- {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
Editnotices
- {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
Talk page notices
- {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
- If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.
Miscellaneous
- {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia. rename to Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved from CfD. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:28Z
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen to Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other entries in Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. Dweller 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. VegaDark 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename differently: Category:Wikipedians interested in F.C. Copenhagen — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would just make the cat name inconsistent in a different way with the other entries in the higher category, rendering the change pointless. See Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. --Dweller 12:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note that none of the other teams in Category:Danish football clubs have periods in their initials. This holds and doesn't hold for the other countries' categories. Take it to CFD? –Pomte 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Of the 72 sub-cats, 66 follow the "Wikipidean xxxx fans" format. If there is a consensus of support for this nomination, I'll nominate the remaining 5 in one go. --Dweller 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, and do nom the other five because they need to be made consistent as well. The Rambling Man 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You have called {{Contentious topics}}
. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:
Alerting users
- {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
- {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
- {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
- {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
Editnotices
- {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
Talk page notices
- {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
- {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
- If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.
Miscellaneous
- {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia. delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not adhering to the Category Naming conventions for categories. Tellyaddict 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename As nominator. Tellyaddict 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Fark. :) –Pomte 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename as per Pomte. ;) Frankly, I like it better the way it is but Tellyaddict is right. -- Seed 2.0 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nonencyclopedic
hooey, sorry, I'm not allowed to state the obvious... nonencyclopedic cruft. If we allow, ahem, stuff like this, pretty soon we're going to have Category:Wikipedians who use Smith's brand lotion when they masturbate and Category:Wikipedians who use John Q. Doe's shareware Windows XP "Start" bar clock widget. Just nip this stuff in the bud while we still have the chance. If this must be kept for some reason, rename per Pomte, not Tellyaddict. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Or if all else fails, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Fark; userhood as a categorizer is of no intrinsic encylcopedia-building value. Updated: 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fark.com has an article, and those other things don't. Applying this standard, it will only lead to cruft we already have, not all conceivable cruft. Category:Wikipedians by website has an even higher standard: "only for highly noteworthy and widely-visited sites." This subjective claim is likely to be established by consensus, and I think Fark fits it. Fark.com even has 2 other articles directly related to it to allow for collaboration. –Pomte 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply comment: Again (I've brought this up before here) "X has an article" is not a valid rationale for keeping a user category. At all. Bat Boy and gringo have articles too, yet Category:Wikipedians who believe in Bat Boy and Category:Wikipedians who love the word "gringo" are never going to be acceptable categories here. There is no relationship between the WP-utility (and therefore acceptability, among other criteria) of user categories and "but...topic X has an article about it!" PS: Just to be clear, I think all of WPians by Web should be deleted as spam and fancruft; the actual "collaboration" being generated by this stuff is simply not in evidence, and WikiProjects exist for a reason (i.e. facillitating said collaboration). No project? No need for a user cat. Project? No need for a user cat; use the WikiProject's members/participants cat. Simple. The real purpose of these website-worship categories is MySpace-ish userbox goofing-off. I'm sure I'd get resistance on the front of getting rid of them all at once, so for now I am simply resisting the addition of yet more spam and fancruft. PPS: Since you didn't like my original tongue-in-cheek lotion and Start bar clock examples, substitue KY Jelly and Virtual Pool 64. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I take it, then, that you'd also be willing to apply the same logic to all other similar categories, like for instance users of Slashdot, Something Awful and Flickr, all of which are major websites with a large following. I'm generally with you as far as avoiding fancruft goes and we certainly don't need a category for 'Wikipedians who read John Doe's blog' but Fark is one of the major news aggregators out there, has a large userbase and is well-known and, frankly, I think you're being just a bit extreme here (no offense). Also, regarding your general point regarding usefulness or, rather lack thereof, of these categories: yes, they may not be as useful as projects dedicated to a particular subject but with the limited number of major sites, they're hardly a big problem in terms of resource usage (ie. they're cheap and just like that extra, somewhat unnecessary redirect, are just nice to have). Not everything has to be judged in terms of utility, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise we'd have to get rid of 95% of all userboxes and a whole lot of other content. WP isn't just an encyclopedia, it's also a community and I don't think you can separate those two aspects. -- Seed 2.0 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply comment: You suss me out pretty correctly. The article about Slashdot is pretty good. It's not going to get any better because of the existence of a category which appears to exist for no real purpose other than to declare "allegience" or fandom. Just because Slashdot has a useless cruft category doesn't mean we need to encourage the creation of more of them (I forget the WP:-something shortcut to the appropriate page about that rationale, but there is one). Show me Wikipedia:WikiProject Slashdot and Category:WikiProject Slashdot members and I would have no objection; that would speak of organized, actual collaboration not wishful-thinking, "maybe someday through random happenstance", imaginary collaboration which is masking "dude, this website rawks!" fannish promotion that serves no legitimate encyclopedic or encyclopedia-building purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Fark.com per name of article including the .com. If you want categories like this deleted you should try a group nom, I'd likely support deletion but not in single noms like this, since that creates the possibilty of a double standard if some wikipedian by website categories are kept and others are deleted. VegaDark 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Largely addressed elsewhere above (short version: I don't have time for a group nom right now), but I want to add that I hope is clear that I think most of this categories are salvageable if renamed to "Wikipedians interested in X" form, including this one. I've never meant to imply that I think Fark is like the blog of Jennie Q. Johnson, high school sophomore. It's the partisanship that is troubling me, no the notability of the subject! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)