Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User/Archive 1

User category tags
We need some new templetes ... the current cfd, cfr, cfm generate incorrect links. Its important to make a nomination correctly link to the relevent discussion. See Category:WFD2008 for an example of a broken nomination, all of the cfd links are now incorrect. I've maually added a link at the top, but we certainly don't want to do this every time. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * sofixit. If you feel templates are necessary, feel free to create them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the name of this template: ? That seems especially important to create a new version of. For example, I can't nominate the degree categories without it.--Mike Selinker 12:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd probably be Template:cfr. (the start of the tag; the vertical bar indicates parameters)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ProveIt created Template:Cfr-user; I've created Template:Cfd-user and Template:Cfm-user. TimBentley (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Some variant of template:cfdend would be a nice addition. Tim! 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:cfduserend created; it will have to be changed when archiving is implemented. TimBentley (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been modified to work with the archival system; it won't work for a date of the form 2006 September 24, either September 24 2006 or 24 September 2006 would work.
 * Another one created: Template:Cfr-user-speedy. TimBentley (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow the SfD model?
It seems that we're shattering our focus here by considering userpage templates and userpage categories separately; why not follow the Stub types for deletion model and utilize this new page for both categories and userboxen/templates? They're inextricably linked in my mind, and it would clean up both TfD/CfD from "nonencyclopedic" content. I'm at a loss as to what to gracefully call it, though; WP:UFD/Wikipedia:Userpage information for deletion? That's ugly. -- nae'blis 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would have dropped user template debates into this page as well if not for the fact that I couldn't find any on WP:TFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * UFD used to stand for 'Userboxes for deletion' which was a TfD fork much like this CfD fork; it might be a good idea to resurrect it as an SFD-like debate. --ais523 10:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with this is that just because someone supports deleting a category doesn't mean that the person also believes in deleting the userbox. For example, I don't care what userboxes people put on their user pages because userboxes don't affect other users. However, I think that user categories should be regulated more stringently since an excess of categories clutters up other categories. Just because the category is deleted doesn't mean that I think the userbox should be deleted too. --Cswrye 18:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

looking for a closer
I nominated a lot of these, so I don't feel I can close them. Can somebody else close a bunch of these so we can move on?--Mike Selinker 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, someone should close some of these. We're way backlogged.--Mike Selinker 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of Esperanto organizations
So.... how would someone rename this? -- ProveIt (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations.--Mike Selinker 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created a primitive template I'm calling for the moment.  It will work, at least for the moment, but will need to be changed when/if this page changes to transcluded files. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've thought about transclusion but in my opinion this page does not presently have the throughput to require that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

archival
We're going to need an archival scheme eventually (since we don't use transclusion, CfD's /Log/ system won't work, to my mind), and one that the templates can take advantage of logically will be better sooner than later. I don't want to get too complex about this; I think MFD has a similar workload, and while they use transclusion, something similar to Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates might be sufficient. -- nae'blis 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I'll add it later today if nobody disagrees. TimBentley (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you already created it. (User categories for discussion/Archive for those interested) TimBentley (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for user categories
I currently have a proposed guideline for user categories. It's currently inactive because I didn't advertise it very well, but maybe the discussion can be revived. Please comment on it and revise it as you like. —Cswrye 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost all of that. I'm pretty conservative on what's "Frivolous," though, and I think opposing something is fine. Sometimes there's not an "-ist" word for the opposition, like the people who oppose some country's independence. But generally I like it.--Mike Selinker 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with using some degree of leniency on the categories. I just think that having some guidelines in place would keep them from getting out of control. --Cswrye 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My proposal is this: We use Cswrye's guidelines as a governor. That means (and this may tick some people off) that "delete all" votes based on comments like "unencyclopedic nonsense" and "Wikipedia is not a social club" will be ignored when closing discussions, if it's clear that the categories do meet one of the four criteria for inclusion on this guideline. To sum it up, this is my proposed rule: A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia. If people who haven't been voting delete all on everything support that, it should go at the top of the CFDU page. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it, but then again, that's why I created those guidelines! My proposal hasn't been accepted by the community though, so I think we should be sure that it has plenty of support before integrating it into this process page. --Cswrye 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like much of what's listed there, but I think it could use some paring and clarification (like most any proposal : ) - Do you mind if anyone else edits it? - jc37 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, check this out. - jc37 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit it; that's why I put it in the "Wikipedia" namespace. Right now, it's based entirely on my own ideas, and I think that any good proposal should be ripped apart by other editors! It also gives me an excuse to remove that tag. One issue that I have with my own proposal is that it borders on instruction creep, so any simplification would be good. Even if it doesn't work out as a guideline, maybe it can be accepted as an essay. Oh, and thanks for pointing out that section on the Userboxes page. I think that it mostly agrees with my proposal, but integrating the two might help out. --Cswrye 14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Category tracker
Per User_talk:Dragons_flight, the trackerbot can't currently differentiate between UCFD and CFD. Do we need/want a different category structure for these discussions, or is that overkill? -- nae'blis 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:VoA scripted admins
Can anyone fix that one? It's going into its second MONTH on CfD.--Mike Selinker 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it from the Working page. I will say this though: Any category that cannot be modified by the rest of Wikipedia may need to be removed entirely.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think users should be strongly discouraged from "categorizing" their javascripts. In fact, I think the developers should break it. If they want to do this, they can put the category or a userbox on their page like everyone else. --Random832 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Observation

 * Comments:
 * Has anyone else noticed that it's essentially just the 5 of us now (with a couple admins acting as closers)?
 * Cswrye
 * jc37
 * kingboyk
 * Mike Selinker
 * Hiding
 * Sometimes we get a creator of a category, or the nominator from the actual CfD page (and sometimes a couple votes from there before it's moved here). And sometimes we have an influx of pro/anti GUS editors for a specific issue.  But otherwise, we are nowhere near close on this page to the diversity of editors who look over the main CfD page.
 * I'm not sure that "hiding" this on this page is fair to the rest of the wikipedian community. Yes, I know about the banners, which are in the middle of other text that people may gloss over. But I don't think it's a good idea ostracising people from a discussion because they are choosing to not read updated text. - jc37 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The split was done arbitrarily and with a dodgy rationale really, so merging them back together would be best. --kingboyk 10:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. If the five of us agreed on that, that's at least as much consensus as the hidden admin page discussion that led to the move. (That said, I'm inclined to fix the stuff we can and then put it back when we're satisfied with the state of the categories.)--Mike Selinker 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the lack of diversity on this process either, and I would prefer that it be merged into the general WP:CFD process. The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't like the user category discussions (many of whom would rather we get rid of user categories completely), and moving this discussion back may upset them again. Any move we do should be done carefully and in consideration of other editors. --Cswrye 15:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a possibility: What if user categories are moved back to WP:CFD but placed in a separate section? There would be the speedy section, the regular section, and then the user section. That way, user categories would still be part of the main discussion page, but people who do not want to participate will be able to easily ignore them. —Cswrye 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Speedy" has it's own page, already (though I honestly think it too should be remerged to the main CfD pages, and if it is, then I agree). Or are you talking about the "working" page? In that case, I agree. - jc37 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that "Speedy" had been moved to its own page. If it was, it must have already been remerged because it can be found at Categories for discussion. I'm proposing a new section, possibly below Categories for discussion, where user categories would be listed. There would still be separate "working" pages for user categories and article categories. —Cswrye 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're talking about transclusion onto the main CfD page? That should be simple enough. - jc37 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll abstain since my bias is to delete all user categories and it appears that would be strengthened by moving back. You might want to head over to WP:CFD and let them know there's a consensus here to move back, and that it's ghettoized.  I'd help close discussions here, but I won't close a discussion I comment in, and I'm doing a lot of discussing. Hiding Talk 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem with breaking the user categories apart was the fact that the bots were choking on the renames. That's easily solvable by giving the user categories their own section of /working, one that bots know to stay away from. Other than that, these categories are no different than the main cats. My opinion is to reintegrate them and get more eyeballs on the discussions. --Kbdank71 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to me that we have a concensus on this. So now... Suggestions for implementation? (Preferably smoother than the split : ) - jc37 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree, but I would like to clear some things out before we move them back. I don't want a repeat of the jarring switch that happened last time. Why not set a date (November 1st?) when the section will be moved back, and make an effort to get a big blocks of changes out of the way before then.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be ok, I suppose, but from what I was hearing, it sounds like all we need to do at this point is edit this page's header down somewhat, and transclude it onto the "main" CfD page? - jc37 15:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

New User Category
I've created Category:User categories for discussion, which is a common category for all user categories that are tagged with cfd-user, cfr-user, etc. This will be used for the user categories instead of putting them in Category:Categories for deletion, Category:Categories for renaming, etc. --Kbdank71 15:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

why are no categories moving?
I'm at a loss to explain why the categories on the Working page are not moving. I've changed the templates to the correct wording, but all the inhabitants are staying put. Anybody have any idea why?--Mike Selinker 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the against advertisements, you missed the User:Disavian/Userboxes/Wikipedia non-commercial template. I'll check the rest.  --Kbdank71 14:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

somebody must like to delete things
I'm looking for someone to use their admin superpowers to delete the legion of empty categories at the bottom of the Working page. You can remove the backlog tags when it's done.--Mike Selinker 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll start on it. --Kbdank71 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They're all done except for the two that weren't empty. --Kbdank71 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. They're emptied now. Go ahead and delete them.--Mike Selinker 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kbdank71 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. I've removed the backlog tag. Would someone please delete the ones I put there since Kb's last deletions?--Mike Selinker 00:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

the instrument categories problem
I can't fix the musical instrument categories, because of the template. This is the code:    As I vaguely understand it, this code puts the template into a level-based category and a general category. One possibility is to nominate all the babel categories too, and convert them all at once (assuming it passes, which I don't know if it will). Someone needs to give me some direction here, or I can't do anything about that block of instrument categories on the Working page. Advice welcome.--Mike Selinker 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've come up with something at Template talk:User instrument, but it would, for example, create Category:Wikipedian bodhránaís rather than Category:Wikipedian bodhrán players. TimBentley (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That would just require changing the "ist" field of certain templates to less jargony names, such as replacing bodhránaí with bodhrán player, right? Doesn't sound like a tragedy to me.--Mike Selinker 13:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I've now changed all the (instrument)-(level) templates to the correct -ist name from the nomination, and created all the new categories. So please implement this coding change right away, and we'll see what moves and what doesn't.--Mike Selinker 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is protected, so an admin will have to do it. TimBentley (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update': All user instrument categories have been emptied, so they can all be deleted now. We have now have quite a backlog there, so I'd appreciate it if someone would take those out soon.--Mike Selinker 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Buried treasure
Well, we've picked up one or two more editors, but we still seem to be the hidden page. What was finally decided about this? - jc37 00:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There was talk above about making the transition back on Nov. 1st. -- nae'blis 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's after the 1st. Now what? : ) - jc37 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. I have a several noms, a few of which are rather large, and I would rather wait and post them to CfD, rather than here, if we are going to migrate back to CfD as we agreed. So what needs to be done (and how may I help? : ) - jc37 06:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about [this comment? Is it just going to take someone to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]]? - jc37 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The only thing that I'm concerned about is the possibility of upsetting regulars on WP:CFD. It seems like a lot of editors (especially admins) don't look favorable on user categories, and if CFD was suddenly innundated with user category requests, we would get a lot of complaints. I feel like we need to be sure that there is consensus on the CFD page that they're okay with user catgories being discussed there and that they approve of the method we use. Otherwise, we may end up being forced to move user category discussions back here. —Cswrye 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Upsetting regulars? So categories can't be discussed on "Categories for discussion", because it might make some Wikipedians upset? Btw, I'm not intending an attack on you by any means. Just the idea of it... Besides, I'm fairly certain you're right... Just please pardon me if I comment how ridiculous this seems to me. Sounds a touch like: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. (Or is it an Argumentum ad baculum?) - jc37 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason behind this page was that the (rather large) amount of nominations on user cats were causing a backlog on CFD. Some people believe that categorization of articles is more important than categorizing our editors by astral sign, hair color and favorite food. ( Radiant ) 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but since apparently most wikipedians don't know this page exists, it "could" be seen as less than transparent. - jc37 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this, jc37, in that I would also prefer that user categories be discussed on CFD rather than here. I'm just saying that we need to keep in mind that a lot of editors don't, so we have to consider what actions they might take if we move the discussion to CFD. To give an example, there used to be several editors who automatically voted "delete" to every category discussion just because they are user categories. —Cswrye 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the issue is transparency, the solution is advertising - e.g. list this page on the various lists of deletion processes, and notify the village pump. If the issue is the same process, Cswrye is correct in that several people have become "fed up" with user categories (like with userbox templates several months earlier) and this may be considered to unfairly sway the debate, or cause needless lengthy discussion on each individual one ("delete all user cats -- no, why? -- because they're stupid -- no, you're stupid -- no, you WP:FAITH -- etc") ( Radiant ) 10:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting help on move of Category:Wikipedians who use Flags of the World
Per the November 4 discussion, this is to be moved to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World. However, every single entry is due to a template that uses the correct category, and the individual pages don't think they are in the category. Help please? And sorry if this isn't the right place. -Amarkov babble 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, fixed it. -Amarkov babble 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I want in on the secret...
What is the tag being used to close debates on this page? --HappyCamper 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * cfd top I'd say. Don't forget to subst it. Duja ► 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)