Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Selinker (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 16 October 2006 (→October 14: instruments). 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

Babel user box categories

The unanimous consensus was for the renaming of these categories, but none of them have actually been renamed, and now the discussion has been archived. —ptk✰fgs 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celloists to Category:Wikipedian cellists

Misspelled category, also confusion with Category:Cellists. - Mike Rosoft 21:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

Instruments

These are the top level categories for musical instrument players. I went with the simplest possible approach for each name, wherever possible matching category:Musicians by instrument. I’d like to leave the Babel discussion for later, and just focus on making these categories have English names rather than jargon.--Mike Selinker 00:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

category:Wikipedians who are Sphenisciologists to category:Wikipedians interested in penguins

Eschewing obfuscation.--Mike Selinker 20:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime categories

rename:

and delete:

This is a partial relist from this discussion, trying to see if people support collapsing these categories into their base category. It's good to have the connection between people who might write about anime, but I think the babel system fails us here.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot categories

rename:

and delete:

Similar to the one above. This is a profession, and no other profession (except musical instruments) has this kind of babel scheme.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See: Pilot licensing and certification. An instrument certified pilot can fly a plane without use of windows/vision. It's also a different certification. Commercial airline pilots are quite different than general pilots. However, I don't think we need to differentiate between the regular commercial pilots and private pilots. If ever we have military, or space pilots listed, I would suggest that they too have a separate category. - jc37 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer categories

rename:

and delete:

Similar to the two above. It's a hobby, and thus the babel scheme is unnecessary. It's good to have the connection to other people who like (and thus might write about) games, but not this gradation.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer

Added due to creation of this category during the following discussion. Please comment in the following nomination.--Mike Selinker 04:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer

Per deletion of previous anti-IE categories. Looks like we're going to have to salt some of these.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's wrong with any anti-IE page? People hate IE! That's a fact. People have become very fed-up with it in the past several years. Why can't Wikipedians express their dislike for it? I don't even understand the issue. Are you being paid off by M$ or something? -KingpinE7
  • Delete - actually, we'll delete a template that expresses any kind of "hate", and we're not being paid off by everyone. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to wave hate-flags, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, am I allowed to change the page to, say, Wikipedians who dislike Internet Explorer? -KingpinE7
    • I'd rather you didn't. As you can see in the archives, it's been a consensus to delete any categories that are purely about dislikes. There's no encyclopedic purpose to linking up over article topics you can't abide.--Mike Selinker 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • <exasperated>How about Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer ?</exasperated> -KingpinE7
        • Sorry, that's not likely to get a keep consensus here either. It's less about expression than it is about utility. Most people on this board are in favor of people creating categories that allow users to link over positive things they might have in common, but things they don't use aren't among them. There are many things people don't use, for many reasons.--Mike Selinker 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, a lot of Wikipedians do not use Internet Explorer. Can you think of anything I can change it to, though? -KingpinE7
            • Not if you want to express a sentiment against a particular product.--Mike Selinker 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wonder if we should differentiate between "does not like" (the "not" categories), and "does not use". Though "does not use", sounds like a "supporter/critic of x" category. Which, last I recall, is still under discussion whether allowable for Wikipedians. - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Would you have a Wikipedia user category that says Wikipedians who don't have a third arm? Of course not, because that counts for almost everyone. The "does not use" category is not all-inclusive, since most people do not tend to use the category even if they do not use Internet Explorer. No, we are not Microsoft slaves. In fact, I'd say more people are in support of Linux than for Microsoft.--WaltCip 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) By the way, I like Internet Explorer. :P Therefore, it is NOT a fact, and that therefore nullifies you claim.[reply]
  • Delete both. "who don't use" per WaltCip. If we started adding everything that everyone doesn't use, Wikipedia would grind to a halt. That and it's a big "so what", really. There is no need to group people by what you don't use. As for "who hate", no, no, and no. Categories like that serve one purpose: to divide people. We are here for one reason, and one reason only: to write an encyclopedia. Grouping people by what they hate does not help anyone do that. If you must express your dislike for MS or IE, put a little paragraph on your userpage, or even better, your own website. Not a category. --Kbdank71 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - If you don't like IE, there's nothing wrong with saying so on your userpage, but what's the point in having a category for it? This doesn't help with editing the encyclopedia at all. —Cswrye 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

Category:Safari users

Category:Safari users into Category:Wikipedians who use Safari

Category:DC Wikipedians

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Destiny's Child, convention of Category:Wikipedians by musician. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename/merge--WaltCip 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with current projects

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


category:Users supporting TRNC to category:Wikipedians who support Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recognition

To match other categories of category:wikipedians by politics.--Mike Selinker 16:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian "adoptions"

These have to change. I don't doubt the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program is useful, but it can't be confused with real adoption. Also, no categories about individual adoptors, please.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Users who do not exist

Amusingly recursive, but automatically false.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was struck out by Kingboyk. --Coredesat (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who have never gotten to first base

TMI.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User +25000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits

To match rest of category:Wikipedians by number of edits.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. You don't see this as divisive, you see "editcountitis" as divisive, and see this as a way of promoting/furthering editcountitis. I understand the perspective. And while I don't necessarily disagree with your main view, I don't think that this userbox itself promotes division. Thank you for clarifying. - jc37 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and already emptied.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mandarin user categories

categories moved in accordance with the code used by RFC 3066 and ISO 639-3 --Hello World! 09:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 6

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete both.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who oppose Montenegrin independence

Added because of the following nomination. Please make comments about both in the next nomination.--Mike Selinker 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who oppose Chechen independence

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/delete per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by degree

Rename:

and delete:

I combined some that were clearly the same degree. The majority of these have no periods in their abbreviations, so I suggest none of them should. I'm happy to add the periods if people want, though. As for value, I think these are extremely useful for finding a helpful someone in a field that covers an article you wish to write, and I don't think they're divisive.--Mike Selinker 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. --kingboyk 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ditto. --Chris S. 14:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all with a couple of suggestions (explained below). I agree with Mike Selinker about the value of these categories. I know that many user categories have questionable usefulness, but I think that these have some of the most apparent value to the project. A person's academic credentials are a major factor relating to their knowledge about certain topics and their ability to edit them. This isn't to say that people without credentials are less about to write about topics, but academic degrees do provide an objective way to see where individuals' expertise may be. Now for my comments: 1) Personally, I like the periods in the abbreviations, but that's not a big deal. 2) I think that Category:User degree/default should be merged into Category:Wikipedians by degree. That way, people who don't want to specify what degree they have will just be in the parent category. Otherwise, I would say that it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians with unknown degrees. That seems to be consistent with other user category hierarchies where users don't specify what they are. 3) I would actually recommend deleting Category:User degree/minor. I don't think it's possible to get a degree in a minor. The userbox simply says "This user has a minor in foo", and the category seems to exist only in response to the userbox. —Cswrye 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, the replacement names would make more sense. --Coredesat (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with everything Cswrye says, but don't see how that makes the categorisation structure the best place to find a person's expertise. If I want to do that I go to their user page. Steve block Talk 20:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That's understandable, and I agree that categories shouldn't be used to just display information that could just as easily be mentioned on the user page. However, that requires you to already know about the user so you can get to their page. User categories have the advantage of helping you find users with a particular expertise when you might not otherwise know that the user even exists. —Cswrye 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steve block.--WaltCip 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename most'. I think most should be renamed, if the qualifications are degrees, but I know some aren't technically degrees. The PGCE for example, is not one I'd consider a degree. It is technically a postgrad certificate qualification. I think it would be odd to categorise this as a degree. There are probably others on the list which are technically not degrees too. Also, could 'BSc' be changed to 'BSc degree' and not 'BS degree', which it currently says in the list. Thanks Evil Eye 11:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all with the following exception: AAs should be renamed to AAS, per Associate's degree and Template:Academic degrees. - jc37 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to rename in general. However, I oppose the category merges without more consideration. For example, as can be seen from the templates, AAS and AAs are different degrees. Note again that most are populated from the template {{User degree/*}}. (The question of whether that template should populate categories is a separate, related question.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that I agree with this. For example, even though "BS" and "BSc" both stand for "Bachelor of Science", there may be differences between the degress that merit separate categorization. Also, someone who received a BS (which I'm pretty sure is more common in the United States) may not want to be categorized under a different abbreviation. I'm of the (not very strong) opinion that different abbreviations should be categorized differently. (I'm starting to reconsider whether we should use abbreviations for these at all since that would do away with this problem completely, but I'm not there yet.) As for the userbox, I believe that userboxes should be designed to accomodate user categories, not the other way around. —Cswrye 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per above. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 01:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


October 4

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete "Massively," but no consensus on "massively".--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who play Massively multiplayer online games to category:Wikipedians who play massively multiplayer online games

Moved from speedy due to discussions.--Mike Selinker 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I've seen Planetside, and it's no RPG. If you took out the MMO part, would you think "First-person shooter" is a subcategory of "Roleplaying game"? I don't. (Plus, the abbreviation is really clunky. It should at least be "MMORPGs.")--Mike Selinker 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article. MMOFPSs are MMORPGs. Which makes sense, you're pretending that you are the shooter. No opinion on whether it should have a "s" at the end in the cat name. - jc37 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tag the main category and we'll have a discussion about it.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to delete the entire Category:Wikipedians who play computer and video games tree. There's a gaming WikiProject already, and they probably have a participants list or category/categories. This is redundant to that and has no additional enyclopedic or community benefit. --kingboyk 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, no. This is way too broad a group of users to expect to see in a WikiProject group. These preference categories are fine by me when they pertain to things lots of folks actually write about, like games.--Mike Selinker 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mike. We may as well delete Category:Wikipedians interested in games if we do that. Probably not a very popular idea, even if most of us are scholarly anti-technology literaturists.--WaltCip 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I disagree with saying "MMOFPRPSGs" are not "MMORPGs"; "Maybe we can create subcategories for each subgenre of MMOGs" sounds tolerable to me. - jc37 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized

Recreation of deleted content.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who are fans of Red vs Blue to category:Wikipedians who like Red vs. Blue

To match current category.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted and salted by User:Kbdank71.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian authors

We recently decided these were a bad idea. These seem to have been created since, so they should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and previous concerns of WP:OWN. - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc37.--WaltCip 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted, and protected. Can someone empty out the featured articles cat for me, I don't have time tonight. Thanks. --Kbdank71 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OWN doesn't apply. This is simply a badge of honour. (WP:OWN is concerned with not treating an article as exclusively one's own; it doesn't mean authors can't claim credit (a right under the GFDL) nor that they don't own the copyright in their work (they do)). However, a userbox is quite sufficient for boasting about an FA contribution so I have no objections. --kingboyk 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (that was basically a delete, by the way). --kingboyk 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really don't care whether or not these exist, but the consensus on the last nomination was pretty clearly a delete. If it is possible to salt categories, doing so may be necessary to keep these from being created again. —Cswrye 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean prevent recreation? I don't know if that's possible. They could probably be protected as regular pages are, but these aren't particularly troublesome categories really. If they get regularly recreated by different folks it might just be that the measure of "consensus" here, on this little outpost of Wikipedia, is simply wrong. Let's wait and see, I don't think action is needed just yet. --kingboyk 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians not using IE

Per deletion of other anti-Internet Explorer category on September 24.--Mike Selinker 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted by Kingboyk. --Coredesat (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who love Swedish Fish

Per deletion of other Swedish fish category on September 10.--Mike Selinker 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who use MSN Messenger

Not sure what's going on with this category (the template gained some new categories, which I removed in probable ignorance), but the new versions should clearly be renamed.--Mike Selinker 07:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User&oldid=81689018"