Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 14

688:. Using categories to supposedly organise and associate and navigate according to some specific non-project quality, like the CfDs I see below, is not very stimulating as it does not encourage structure. They just lead to a multitude of low population single level categories. This one is an exception, as it is a clear subcategory or another popular category. It may not be very creative, but we need some few such trees. The two to four test categories we have been allowed are woefully ineffective at demonstrating what categories can do. Sure, mainspace categories demonstrate a lot, but the problem is that not many editors involve themselves with categories at all. This category is a partial remedy to that problem. -- 1083:

bamboozled. also, many some regulars like to hang back to read outsiders comments first). Neither has anyone agreed with me. You and I are still working to understand each other. I am still digesting you initial reply. I don't think this should be kept for being funny. Humour in project space is a misnomer, in my opinion. In project space, humour, like parody, satire and ridicule, where non-personal, is valuable for learning and educational purposes. ILIKIT *is* nice, though it is necessary to know why someone likes it. Note that the learning experiences can feel "likable". HARMLESS is a decent counter argument where there is no good reason to delete. --

666:. We should be far more open to userspace categories to entice greater interest and learning of the category system. In this way odd user-categories serve a purpose. The do no harm. There are no performance concerns. Userspace is not required to be encyclopedic. Extending the complexity and relationships of categories in userspace is a step in encouraging coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the category system. -- 734:- I'm not sure why you would feel that way. Every conceivable thing one can do with a category can be done with 2 test categories as far as I can remember. It seems like you are arguing that this should be kept as some sort of test category, which I would disagree with as we already have several test categories that you mentioned that are clearly labeled as such. Keeping this as a test category would make no sense. 1774:, I'm sure the lone user could find (or create if necessary) the appropriate category for the degrees he has. This is an unnecessary category junction - We don't need to categorize people who have both a science and art degree. Additionally, giving such a general description of a "science" degree and an "art" degree are so broad they aren't particularly useful, even if this was an appropriate category junction. 730:- I'm not sure what you are saying here. Because it is a subcategory of a popular category, we should keep it so users can see how category trees work? As I mentioned above, we can do so with clearly beneficial categories if this is the case. We shouldn't keep unencyclopedic categories around if they happen to be subcategories, merely so users can see how a category tree works. 1033:

You and I and all admins know debates are not decided by numbers. In fact, a plethora of simple bad arguments speaks against "their side". Mostly, I invited them because I was too much guessing whay they created/used the category. You chased me further up the limb, and at this point some statements from the horses mouths might be useful. --

738:- Once again I fail to see your argument here. Last I checked there were only 3 users in this category, so this isn't exactly a category that is breaking down the barriers for someone interested in categories to experiment with. I don't really see how this category existing is making users more interested in categorization. 718:- The existence of user categories that don't benefit the encyclopedia fosters a culture that such categories are acceptable, and this I would argue does do harm. Additionally, they provide for more categories for a user looking to use categories for collaboration to have to wade through, which may hinder their goal. 1283:- While the numbers are equal (3 for keeping, 3 for deleting), the arguments towards deleting are much more policy-based. While SmokeyJoe's arguments for more test categories are interesting (as are the other arguments), they are not policy-based, and as such there is no reason that in this case we should 1404:- It's unencyclopedic to categorize users based on their enjoyment of playing darts. I enjoy playing darts, but I have no inclination to improve or knowledge that would help me improve any of the pages about darts. As named, I could join this category nonetheless. A far more encyclopedic name would be 1051:

I bet you would be hard pressed to find an admin willing to close this discussion as is as delete, even if they 100% agreed with my arguments and 100% wasn't persuaded by any keep rationales. Thus, numbers do make a difference, even if we like to pretend that they don't. I hope an admin willing to do

1032:

I don't agree it was improper. I don't think there is ever anything improper in advising people who have shown previously an interest. I thought the reason we didn't usually advise the membership was because it too often resulted in people complaining of spamming. It is not about gaining numbers.

1013:

I would consider your notice to the category members (not the creator) improper canvassing. Clearly, members of a category are going to be more inclined to support keeping a category. In the past this has been deemed inappropriate, and would hope the closing administrator takes this into account when

898:

Yes,but also because users can fiddle with it without altering the mainspace product. We should keep some unimportant user category trees so users can see, play and experiment with them. They have to be interesting enough categories that many users will watch, but not so important that people will

919:

I'm not sure why you would feel that way. Every conceivable thing one can do with a category can be done with 2 test categories as far as I can remember. It seems like you are arguing that this should be kept as some sort of test category, which I would disagree with as we already have several test

893:

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Because it is a subcategory of a popular category, we should keep it so users can see how category trees work? As I mentioned above, we can do so with clearly beneficial categories if this is the case. We shouldn't keep unencyclopedic categories around if they

803:

The existence of user categories that don't benefit the encyclopedia fosters a culture that such categories are acceptable, and this I would argue does do harm. Additionally, they provide for more categories for a user looking to use categories for collaboration to have to wade through, which may

1422:

I can't think of any usefulness to the project of this category. It is well populated (137), but that is because the userbox includes the category. Normally, one might think that the member count is evidence for interest in the category, but users probably aren't even aware that they are using

1082:

If a couple of other regulars were to weigh in with "delete", I would expect it to be deleted, but no, this debate at this stage has not reached a consensus. Your nomination and replies have not yet induced anyone to agree (I expected them too, but I expect the initial comments and replies have

955:

Once again I fail to see your argument here. Last I checked there were only 3 users in this category, so this isn't exactly a category that is breaking down the barriers for someone interested in categories to experiment with. I don't really see how this category existing is making users more

848:

I disagree that the community has placed a clear limit here. A few years back, a huge number of unexpandable, non-interacting, non-project-relating user-categories were deleted. I think you have misinterpreted the communities position and have gone a little too far in deleting userspace

2349:

I wouldn't oppose the first, and as for the second I'd support a flat out deletion of "Wikipedians from" categories, as I don't believe it helps the encyclopedia to know where particular users are from (And may not be in anymore, so the meetup category wouldn't necessarily fit).

1852:

I tagged the category which according to policy is sufficient notice. I used to alert all creators, and I still sometimes do, but when I do a group of nominations at once such as this, I'm usually burnt out with typing by the time I write out every nom and tag every category.

1644:

Thank you. I agree now that it is more efficient and reasonable to open the debate here, where the implicit question, "should the userbox automatically categorise this way", is considered. No, it shouldn't. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to help such people to coordinate.

2287:

Actually, yes. From years of debates, the best I can remember behind the logic of keeping these categories from an encyclopedic standpoint is that someone could look through the list and ask a user to take a picture of something. Thus, categorizing where people are

1812:. The user already has userboxes saying "This user has a Master of Science degree" & "This user has a Master of Arts degree". An extra click to acknowledge some guideline as a hurdle in category creation might have prevented this category's creation. -- 722:- Yes, but this is category space. Unfortunately, there's no user category namespace, and even if there were, the community has clearly placed limits on what categories are acceptable for Knowledge (XXG), as outlined in the topical index you link to above. 960:

Yes, there are only 2 or 3. But those 2 or 3 are more than zero. There would be more of there wasn’t a message pervading the community that only an elite are allowed to work with categories. It seems to me that you are trying to suppress user category

828:

Yes, but this is category space. Unfortunately, there's no user category namespace, and even if there were, the community has clearly placed limits on what categories are acceptable for Knowledge (XXG), as outlined in the topical index you link to above.

356:

while this is a composers' category, not a performers' categpry, it is too like a performance by performer cateory for my liking. The "melody festival" of the name appears to be the Swedish competion for its nomination for the Eurovision song contest.

1581:" - Several problems with this. First, it is unencylopedic to group users in a category based of enjoyment of creating a fictional land. How would such a grouping help improve the encyclopedia? Second, the actual article this is linked to is titled 1408:, but like I pointed out, such users in the current category wouldn't necessarily fit in the "interested in" category, so perhaps deletion is the better choice (without prejudice to someone creating an "interested in" category, of course. 1621:

It might be more productive, but there's nothing preventing someone from just reverting the changes if they liked it that way, as opposed to this which establishes a G4 precedent to delete if recreated. Also, usually I find that while a

1451:. As VegaDark noted, enjoying an activity (whether it be darts, eating or sex) does not imply a special interest or ability to improve pages related to that activity. I would have no objection to a category for users genuinely 1110:

Per the fact that it's a humorous category and isn't harming anyone. Vega, we have three users because I just created it a few months ago. The trout template has been around for years and is pretty well known in the community.

645:(which as far as I'm concerned should be deleted as well, but that's for another discussion). Regardless of your opinion of the trout category, this category brings nothing to the encyclopedia that the trout one doesn't. Per 2234:, this is only a city, not a country, so a "by nationality" category would be innapropriate, less we want to have a nationality category for every large city (which I don't think would be helpful to the encyclopedia). 778:

Fine with me as long as the categories improve the encyclopedia. As above per WP:USERCAT, user categories are meant to aid in collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia. I don't see that here.

2314:

OK, I think I have seen that logic mentioned before. Unfortunately, I do not think that the users who added themselves to this category did so for that reason, and so the rename may be creating misinformation.

1585:, so the title needs to be changed at minimum, as it leads to a redlink. Third, "Fictional Lands" is improperly capitalized, so once again, this needs a rename at minimum (but deletion is my first choice). 1213: 1130: 685: 726:- Perhaps so, but we could do that with categories that clearly benefit the encyclopedia if so. You could use that argument to try and defend the deletion of any category, no matter how unencyclopedic. 1955: 869:

Perhaps so, but we could do that with categories that clearly benefit the encyclopedia if so. You could use that argument to try and defend the deletion of any category, no matter how unencyclopedic.

864:

Extending the complexity and relationships of categories in userspace is a step in encouraging coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the category system.

724:

Extending the complexity and relationships of categories in userspace is a step in encouraging coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the category system.

1052:

so does close this, however, as there hasn't been a single policy-driven argument to keep this category, or any fluid link to how this supposedly helps the encyclopedia. Basically all I've seen is

1183: 873:

We could, but a novice experimenting with existing categories would do harm, and cause upset. As I said, I don’t want to defend just *any* user category. It has to be related to the project.

808:

There are not now, unlike a few years ago, so many user categories that you easily navigate them. In this case, the category merely subdivides further an existing wikipedia user subcategory.

42: 37: 153:

Aside from the technical alignment of category and article names, this looks like a category that needs care as it has potential as an attack category. See for example the inclusion of

1603:, all members are there due to transclusion of a userbox template. VegaDark, do you think it would be more productive to remove the categorisation line from the userboxes? -- 1222:

The category is basically unrelated to the encyclopedia, except through its focus on a spin-off of an inside joke, and is just one of potentially thousands of subcategories of

472: 1871:

I understand. I think this has been discussed before, but would you object to automatic (bot) notification of the category creator when the category is listed at CfD? --

2231: 2550: 1916:

per creator. I thought there would be more people that had both, I did this early in my wikipedia career, in my more experimental phase... I'm fine to delete it.

1448: 1217: 1426:. I'd like to see if any of the many users object. (Can I assume that none SUBSTed the userbox template? ... probably, as all incoming links are transclusions 833:

I submit that categories that are for use in userspace, and are never to be used in mainspace, or even the main talkspace, are for all purposes, user categories.

649:, "The purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. 1626:

of users might be in a given category due to userbox template, there are almost always a few exceptions that linger in the category, preventing a C1 deletion.

1424: 783:

My thought is that more user categorisation, even if not wholely serious, will allow more users to lean about categorisation, and that this is a good thing.

1259: 642: 442: 21: 2318: 1456: 1405: 2296:(although there are numerous "Wikipedians from" categories that remain, the logic behind keeping them escapes me. Perhaps a mass CfD is in order). 728:

This one is an exception, as it is a clear subcategory or another popular category. It may not be very creative, but we need some few such trees

888:

This one is an exception, as it is a clear subcategory or another popular category. It may not be very creative, but we need some few such trees

2223: 1244:(text or media) can be humorous, but I don't see how a bare collection of user names/pages (which is what a user category is) can be funny. -- 1129:

No consensus exists that humorous categories are appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) space, sure, but categories actually have an

1749: 17: 1741: 2269:

Why do we use "in" and not "of". Are members supposed to remove themselves from the category whenever they travel out of the location? --

1556: 342: 1548: 1262:

which serves the same purpose, at least until that also gets deleted. Maybe this is just my reaction to the appropriate category for me,

483: 1732: 620: 612: 991: 1539: 993: 736:

the problem is that not many editors involve themselves with categories at all. This category is a partial remedy to that problem.

2034: 950:

the problem is that not many editors involve themselves with categories at all. This category is a partial remedy to that problem.

714:, user categories are meant to aid in collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia. I don't see that here. 603: 2064: 2042: 463:

to the top, but the target category was deleted during the cooldown period. I will ask that editor to explain his/her reasons.

2341: 2201: 1375: 1191:- Don't some editors have enough to do? This isn't even a Wiki page. Really, who gives a fuck if it is deleted or not? Not me. 1427: 988: 309: 2494: 2259: 2092: 2025: 1799: 1771: 767:

You've thrown a lot out there and I can't really follow your rationale to keep. Let me go through your comments one by one.

494: 110: 2193: 1383: 706:

You've thrown a lot out there and I can't really follow your rationale to keep. Let me go through your comments one by one.

317: 1600: 1366: 1236:

As far as serving a humorous purpose... To be honest, the very idea of a "humorous category" strikes me as odd. How can a

2322: 1212:– User categories intended to perpetuate or reflect inside jokes or humor have, with a few exceptions, been deleted (see 300: 2566: 2521: 2499: 2476: 2427: 2403: 2379: 2359: 2305: 2278: 2264: 2243: 2184: 2178: 2154: 2130: 2114: 2097: 2076: 2019: 1995: 1971: 1926: 1898: 1880: 1862: 1843: 1821: 1804: 1783: 1726: 1702: 1678: 1658: 1635: 1612: 1594: 1533: 1509: 1485: 1469: 1438: 1417: 1360: 1336: 1312: 1296: 1275: 1250: 1204: 1150: 1120: 1092: 1073: 1042: 1023: 1004: 972: 747: 697: 675: 658: 597: 573: 549: 533: 516: 499: 430: 406: 382: 366: 346: 294: 270: 246: 230: 213: 194: 166: 143: 98: 74: 2468: 1443:

The category is empty now, so it seems that all 137 users were there because of the userbox (as SmokeyJoe suspected).

190: 135: 1263: 1231: 1224:

Category:Wikipedians who are open to being assaulted, injured or killed by fellow Wikipedians wielding fauna or flora

1223: 920:

categories that you mentioned that are clearly labeled as such. Keeping this as a test category would make no sense.

914:

The two to four test categories we have been allowed are woefully ineffective at demonstrating what categories can do

732:

The two to four test categories we have been allowed are woefully ineffective at demonstrating what categories can do

2230:, "This article refers to the people of Zamboanga City". While a category like this might have been appropriate for 2439: 457: 773:

We should be far more open to userspace categories to entice greater interest and learning of the category system.

708:

We should be far more open to userspace categories to entice greater interest and learning of the category system.

932: 2565:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2378:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2129:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1970:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1677:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1484:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1311:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

548:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

438: 381:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

245:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2402:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2153:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1994:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1701:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1508:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1335:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

572:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

405:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

269:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2542: 1947: 1175: 2472: 362: 139: 106: 2329: 1258:. We have had our fun here already. In case it makes it any easier for the closing admin, just upmerge to 1198: 186: 2423: 2174: 2015: 1722: 1529: 1459:), which is not populated by a userbox expressing merely a "like", since the scope for collaboration is 1356: 1292: 1271: 593: 426: 290: 119: 94: 2435: 1057: 1053: 507:

Writing abbreviation full avoids confusion; fixes grammar of current title; matches parent category. --

1578: 1138: 1061: 711: 646: 2517: 2337: 2274: 2110: 1876: 1839: 1817: 1654: 1608: 1434: 1088: 1038: 1000: 968: 693: 671: 2226:- to match the "Wikipedians by location" category tree naming format. According to our article on 2532: 2492: 2355: 2301: 2257: 2239: 2090: 2072: 1937: 1894: 1858: 1797: 1779: 1631: 1590: 1413: 1165: 1146: 1069: 1019: 743: 654: 529: 492: 358: 209: 182: 468: 2452: 1582: 1465: 1246: 1227: 1193: 2419: 2317:

I'm guessing that you would like "Wikipedians in XXX" categories to be in the category tree

2170: 2011: 1831: 1718: 1525: 1352: 1288: 1267: 1116: 589: 512: 422: 286: 226: 174: 154: 90: 1284: 178: 2464: 162: 157:, but also various other articles which do not align to either -phobia or anti-sentiment. 131: 2227: 756:

If I may copy and reformat the above to make it easier to follow...(my words in italics)

2513: 2459:

as too small, with no prejudice to recreation if more articles on the topic are made. —

2333: 2270: 2106: 1872: 1835: 1813: 1650: 1604: 1460: 1430: 1230:... although the title of this particular category makes it seem like a subcategory of 1084: 1034: 996: 964: 689: 667: 453:. This is a process nomination; an editor attempted to rename the category by adding a 2512:. Only two articles beyond the parent, and both link sufficiently from the text. -- 2487: 2351: 2297: 2252: 2235: 2085: 2068: 1890: 1854: 1792: 1775: 1627: 1586: 1409: 1142: 1065: 1015: 739: 650: 525: 487: 205: 123: 464: 1137:

keeping any such categories. This is because humorous categories clearly violates

1919: 1112: 710:- Fine with me as long as the categories improve the encyclopedia. As above per 508: 222: 894:

happen to be subcategories, merely so users can see how a category tree works.

2460: 926:

Yes, this should be kept as some sort of test category for users to play with.

158: 127: 684:

Further comment. I don't oppose the deletion of most of the things found at

2396: