Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User/Archive 2

Code Breaks
When doing userpage changes due to a resultant UCFD, please be careful to not break the user's code on the page.

See this at User:Coolgamer. It's possibly the worst example of where removing or changing categories had left the page in a mess. It took quite a bit of time to manually go through and try to fix the breaks. (I didn't completely fix the formatting, just obvious syntax errors, but hopefully the user can fix his preferences from there.)

One thing to watch for:

This should be the last line for most userbox code: |}

It should not be on the same line as the text that precedes it.

Hope this helps. - jc37 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User categories guidelines
Any chance of reviving Guidelines for user categories and attempting to get it to guideline status? VegaDark 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with you there. We need to have a good discussion about what is and is not acceptable here. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to a related subject, I put a note on the userpage talk page about a guideline. This may lead to other guidelines, as discussed above.--Mike Selinker 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Restarting this conversation, can we get something, anything, up? Just get the bare bones, "Categories declaring that one does not follow Wikipedia policies - While being against Wikipedia policies is ok, not following them is not", stuff up. UCFD is ignored because, in part, there are no agreed-upon rules. If we can get the lowest common denominator posted, it might jumpstart things. Xiner (talk, email) 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, this is my criteria, based on Cswrye's guideline: 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. I would be willing to have this (or some edited version of this) at the top of the page if people want. But I don't feel comfortable putting it there myself.--Mike Selinker 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll about Category:Wikipedians by web browser
I'm wondering what people think about Category:Wikipedians by web browser and its dozen or so subcategories. Should they exist? Then again, what is the purpose of most user cats anyway? Xiner (talk, email) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all of them should be at least renamed to "Wikipedians interested in". In the long run my ultimate goal for this category would be to upmerge them all and rename the parent cat to" Wikipedians interested in collaborating on web browser articles" (or a name very similar). VegaDark 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to keep the categories. They are somewhat important as editing tools work differently and pages themselves appear differently in different browsers. Popups look different in Firefox than in IE for example. People developing such tools would possibly benefit from knowing how many editors use different browsers. Dan D. Ric 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like VegaDark's idea. Dan, I think any stats analysis program on a server would be more reliable than a self-selected group of Wikipedians with an account. Also it's only a bit less commercial than those cats that mention individual products/companies. Xiner (talk, email) 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't bother me, nor do any of the tech categories.--Mike Selinker 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with MS here. And to answer the question at the top: "...what is the purpose of most user cats anyway?" - Communication of knowledge about a Wikipedian's knowledge, experience, interests, current status, etc. Any of which may be useful indirectly or directly in collaboration. In other words, there is quite a difference between saing that you use IE or that you use Firefox, and saying that you like click on "internet options" through IE. How specific a category should sub-categorise is, of course, subjective, but browser type is well above such a dividing line. And as far as sub-categorising, such a framework is not only allowed, but embraced when categorising articles. It is, after all, what sub-categories are for. I don't believe that Wikipedian categories should be any different in that respect.- jc37 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I think the result of the poll is no consensus. I'll retreat to more agreeable nominations now. Xiner (talk, email) 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikia
I'd like a discussion about whether we should support Wikia-related categories. If we do, obviously such categories should be subcats of a single Wikipedians by Wikia Wiki or some such name.

Since Wikia sites are typically topic based (such as Star Trek's Memory Alpha), they obviously can be considered useful for collaboration.

We already support whether a Wikipedian has an account on the various sister projects and language prjects (such as commons).

Note: AFAIK Wikia is not under the Wikimedia foundation, though it was apparently founded by User:Jimbo Wales and User:Angela. Though apparently Wikipedia supports interwiki linking between the sister projects and the Wikia sites (see: m:Help:Interwiki linking and Interwiki map.)

Interested in further discussion. - jc37 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikia is a for-profit organization. I'm against the proposal right now, because we've just deleted a Battlestar Wiki user cat -- a deletion I support. Xiner (talk, email) 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the main concerns here is if the Wiki has an article on Wikipedia or not. The Battlestar wiki article was deleted, so a category for Wikipedians who contribute to it was obviously not useful. If we had a category such as Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Alpha, that would be a different story, but I still don't support that being allowed. Primarily I don't support this because I don't think categorizing users based on them contributing to other sites is helpful. Second, assuming we renamed this to Category:Wikipedians interested in Memory Alpha, Memory Alpha is a single article, not a group of topics. If we allowed a category of people interested in collaborating on a single article we would be allowing over 1.5 million user categories, one for each article. I think "Wikipedians interested in..." categories (which I still support a renaming of) should allow for collaboration on at least 5-10 articles. For instance, Category:Wikipedians interested in computer mice would be acceptable since there are many articles relating to that topic (different types of mice, different models, etc.) But Category:Wikipedians interested in the Microsoft IntelliMouse would be too specific since it would only allow for collaboration on 1 article. I think any category of people who contribute to Wikia Wikis would fall under this as being too specific, unless we had articles such as History of Memory Alpha and several more directly related to it before a category of people specifically interested in that should be made. VegaDark 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by website
I didn't know that Category:Wikipedians by website exists. By its logic, Category:Wikipedians on Wikia should exist if it doesn't already. I'm still against the idea, though, as it doesn't help Wikipedia at all. I wonder if others feel differently though. What if I bring it up for deletion? Xiner (talk, email) 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support deletion of all those categories for the concern I mentioned above - If we allow categories that can only be used to collaborate on a single article, we are allowing over 1.6 million user categories. Perhaps an upmerge of some sort to make the categories facilitate collaboration on 5-10 articles minimum would be a solution as well (i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on humor website topics) VegaDark 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of work, but I suppose that could work, too. Xiner (talk, email) 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries
I think the cat should be renamed, but have no idea what it should be. Xiner (talk, email) 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It should probably be deleted. They can add themselves to each ancestry's individual category to communicate this. VegaDark 03:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. To take it a step further, I'm not willing to delete category:Multiracial Wikipedians, because the intersection of racial identities (rather than the accumulation of separate ones) is often part of those people's character. I think this one might fit that description, or at least I'm not willing to say outright that it doesn't.--Mike Selinker 11:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I want to rename it rather than delete. What do you think of the current name, Mike? Xiner (talk, email) 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup
I've just told my bot, Snowbot, to remove pages from already deleted categories. It seems there are really many categories not empty, even if old. I hope to fix it in a run. If there are any major problems, drop a not at User talk:Snowbot otherwise, at my talk page. Happy Editing by  Snowolf  (talk)  CON  COI  on  17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowbot has finished its run. Many of the categories are created by userboxes. Here is the full run of the bot, taken from its .bat file. If somebody wants to check the linked categories to clean 'em up, it will be appreciated.

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"TDS Original userbox" -summary:"removing Category:TDS Original userbox per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who will not drink Foster's beer" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who will not drink Foster's beer per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who dislike Harry Potter" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who dislike Harry Potter per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who aren't administrators" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who aren't administrators per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who hope Richard Stallman and Creative Commons will reconcile their licenses" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who hope Richard Stallman and Creative Commons will reconcile their licenses per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2004" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2004 per UCFD" -log


 * Yeah, make the edit summaries as nice as possible. What you do is right, I think, but there's gonna be unhappy people. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2005" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2005 per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2006" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2006 per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who use HeavenGames" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who use HeavenGames per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Drug-free Wikipedians" -summary:"removing Category:Drug-free Wikipedians per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians in the American Telecommuting Association" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians in the American Telecommuting Association per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who live in Tinton Falls" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who live in Tinton Falls per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedian Caped Crusader" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedian Caped Crusader per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians that wear Crocs" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians that wear Crocs per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians tired of reggaeton" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians tired of reggaeton per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py move -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians" -to:"Wikipedians in the Counter Vandalism Unit" -summary:"moving Category:Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in the Counter Vandalism Unit per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who use Lyriki" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who use Lyriki per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who use FAQ Farm" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who use FAQ Farm per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who use BigFooty" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who use BigFooty per UCFD" -log

D:\python25\python.exe category.py remove -log -putthrottle:12 -from:"Wikipedians who use the Chaos Chambers" -summary:"removing Category:Wikipedians who use the Chaos Chambers per UCFD" -log

I'm very sorry for non cleaning it up, but I'm quite tired now, I'll do it tomorrow, I hope. Happy Editing by  Snowolf  (talk)  CON  COI  on  17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been removing people if the discussion ends in delete. People put themselves in categories that don't exist all the time and I recall discussions of people complaining about "messing with their userpage" by doing so.  They can remove themselves as far as I am concerned.  If you want to get your bot to do it though, I am fine with that. VegaDark 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of what is done in a closure of a CFD discussion which results in delete is to remove the members of the category. That applies to WP:UCFD, and in looking over contribution lists, is what Mike S and I have been doing in good faith. The easiest way is often to remove the category from a userbox, but there are often those who merely add themselves to the category manually. If after one of us has removed the category from a userpage, a user can always re-add it to their user page (as VegaDark explains above, Wikipedians often place themselves in nonexistant/redlinked categories.) Hope this helps clarify. - jc37 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that it wasn't very important to do in the userspace, since as I said above people add themselves to redlinked categories all the time. However, I will start removing members in discussions that result in delete from now on if we are going to actually make an effort to start removing members from redlinked categories.  Hopefully your bot can do most of the work so we won't get yelled at for "messing with userpages". VegaDark 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And if possible, please add the date of the WP:UCFD in the summary. It helps to find the discussion in the archives. If the Cfd was nominated on March 10, I typically put:

per March 10 WP:UCFD


 * Hope this helps : ) - jc37 10:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I always do do that :). The deletion reasons above cut out the date that I always add. VegaDark 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was meaning Snowbot, since it links directly to the discussion, which won't be there after it's archived. Sorry for the confusion : ) - jc37 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Renaming
While it isn't generally a Speedy criterion for Categories, Up to this point, I've been considering a request to change "Users" to "Wikipedians" as falling under speedy criteria for a User category.

Another is merely re-arraging the order of the words in a user category name to match consistancy. (Banker Wikipedians vs Wikipedian Bankers, for example).

There have not been any concerns so far (I can't think of a controversial example at all), so should we add this somewhere, for future reference? - jc37 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Xiner (talk, email) 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The speedy criteria should read "Any category intended for Wikipedians that has no indication it is a Wikipedian category can be speedy renamed. This includes categories that use the wrong naming conventions to indicate it is a user category (i.e. "Users" instead of "Wikipedians"." Sound good? VegaDark 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even better. Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yuh-huh.--Mike Selinker 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Empty categories
In case anyone wants some work to do, there is a list of over 5,000 empty categories (both regular and user alike) at User:Betacommand/Datadump/20070301, most of which can be speedy deleted. VegaDark 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User en
or, babel box categories.

Does anyone else think that this should be renamed to "Wikipedians who speak English" (and all of the other hundreds of babel-box categories accordingly?) This would be a truly massive (and potentially somewhat disruptive) nomination, so I want to see if anyone agrees that this should be done before doing so. Probably a naming convention should actually be decided on (speak/know/etc, naming conventions for the levels, etc) before doing so as well. --Random832 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestions
 * Status quo -- User en; User en-0; User en-3
 * Wikipedians who speak English; Wikipedians who do not speak English; Wikipedians who speak English at an advanced level
 * Wikipedians by language: en; Wikipedians by language: en-0; Wikipedians by language: en-3

I've listed some possibilities, any others? --Random832 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion recently that maintained the status quo for the fear of a can of worms. I don't see an archive page here though. Xiner (talk, email) 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Babel so we can get broader input. If there is a consensus to maintain the status quo, I will be adding this convention to WP:NCCAT --Random832 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe all the Babel categories should go away. Level of proficiency exists in no other arena (except, bizarrely, musical instruments), and should be deleted here.--Mike Selinker 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that all the 0 categories are "not" categories and do not help collaboration - does anyone object to these being deleted? --Random832 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a consensus that all but en-0 should be deleted. The loner is useful for non-English speakers on en.wiki. Xiner (talk, email) 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But how is it useful? If a non-english speaker wants to find people s/he can communicate with, better to use the language category for their own language. The userbox is useful, certainly, no-one's suggesting deleting or renaming the boxes themselves, but I don't think that it's useful to categorize based on not speaking english without regard to what language the user does speak. --Random832 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Broad proposal for minimal/inclusive categories: user en-1 to (say) user en-2 add to category A, say "Wikipedians who know some English". user en-3 through user en-N add to this and also to the category B, say "Wikipedians fluent in English". user en-0 adds to no categories. --Random832 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some editors on en.wiki are not very good with English at all, and while they can still contribute using their other languages, it was agreed that knowing their limitations is useful. Xiner (talk, email) 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the userbox user en-0 should be deleted - what purpose does the _category_ Category:user en-0 serve? The box is sufficient to let people know their limitations. It's a not category, plain and simple. --Random832 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. That's a good point, and I wonder if everyone else agrees, too. Xiner (talk, email) 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That is a potentially useful way of finding several people with an interest, but lack of proficiency, in a language. For example, if you come up with some tool that will translate that language, or merely make it language easier to read, you may well want to find several people like that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Babel categories are easier to read in the current format if you don't speak English. All I have to be able to do to understand "en-4" is to look up a language code (en) and the meaning of the number (4). If we use "Wikipedians who speak English", you have to be able to read English to know what that means. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Xiner (talk, email) 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, is "wikipedians by language: en-4" still on the table or is this discussion over? --Random832 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need. I'd like to see more discussion. The flip side to Ptkfgs's argument, for example, is that if you want to find someone who knows Russian, say, then it'd be easier with the words spelled out. Xiner (talk, email) 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that all non-language categories (including programming languages) should be debabelized? --Random832 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. See the UCfDs. Xiner (talk, email) 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For an argument for the "Wikipedians by language: (code)-(level)" - note the organization of es:Category:Usuarios_por_idioma. Incidentally, some Wikipedias sidestep the issue by using the equivalent of "Wikipedian" for both these and their User: namespace. --Random832 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Underhanded deletion of Fascist Wikipedianas category
Why was I not notified of the vote to delete the Fascist Wikipedians category? Since I am the only one in the category I should be notified so I can state my opinion. It was very underhanded to vote without my knowledge and delete it with only 2 people voting to delete it. If it goes up for a vote again please notify me. At least have that basic decency. Billy Ego 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have looked at the deletion log before creating the category, it was previously deleted and was thus speedy deletable as recreation of previously deleted content. Discussions don't even need to take place for speedy deletable things, if you think the category should be undeleted you are free to take it to deletion review. VegaDark 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Content"? It's not an article. It's a category. It's absurd that the same thing can be deleted over and over with no discussion simply because it has been deleted once in the past. How do I take it to the "deletion review"? Billy Ego 02:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion review -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Billy Ego 02:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Category: Wikipedians Who are Failures
Category:Wikipedians_who_are_failures My user page was added to this category by noob101 I believe this category is being used as a way of insult me, and Eskimo14 (Possibly other users in the future), and so should be removed. Mootoog 02:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — xaosflux  Talk  02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass nominations
Anyone know the easiest way to do a mass nomination? I intend to nominate a large number of Category:Wikipedians by politics subcategories because the Fascist Wikipedians DRV revealed a substantial number of people think they should not exist and do not help the encyclopedia. --Random832 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Either list them like I did the 0-level categories, or simply say "Wikipedians by politcs and all subcategories". VegaDark 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to split them into several nominations:
 * political party wikipedians
 * political philosophy wikipedians
 * Wikipedians who support some issue
 * etc
 * Hope this helps : ) - jc37 22:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The other issue is - is it necessary to tag every single category? I didn't tag the year categories, but I was ignoring all rules anyway in that case due to the extremely divisive piecemeal debates that had gone on until then. --Random832 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People with [{WP:AWB|AWB]] may be able to help. In addition, with such complicated nominations as these, I'd take a straw poll on this talk page first. Iron out the kinks instead of having differing opinions create a no-consensus situation on the UCfD page. 151.202.74.135 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox confusion
It looks like there is a common occurance of people confusing the discussions for categories with discussions for templates, primarily userboxes. Although there is a note saying they are not the same, I doubt many people read it. Anyone think adding something such as this on the main page would be a good idea? VegaDark 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oooh, I didn't know a warning could be made so easily. But no, I'm not sure how much it'd help. It'll help some, but remember that most people arrive at the page via a deletion notice, and they may only see the section in question, not the messages at the top. It probably won't hurt, so I wouldn't oppose it. I should've tried harder to dispel that misconception, that's for sure. Xiner (talk, email) 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd comment that we already have such a notice at the top of the page, but since this discussion seems to indicate that even you two didn't notice it, perhaps we need some "flash" : ) - jc37 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Although there is a note saying they are not the same, I doubt many people read it." :P VegaDark 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is some confusion and that most people don't read/understand the current language. The problem isn't lack of notice, it's just that most people are not likely to understand the esoteric arguments involved.  I wonder if it wouldn't help to patrol this from the other end - discuss whether certain userboxes should be allowed to populate categories.  Then, when those discussions end, the categories will probably be empty and can be sd.  If they are not empty, then bring the discussion here, because it will no longer be hard-wired to userboxes.  --NThurston 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copyedited the header. Feel free to change it again. Xiner (talk, email) 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The page needs archiving again.
Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should set up Werdnabot to automatically archive this page. VegaDark 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the project page. Can Werdnabot distinguish between closed and open discussions? Xiner (talk, email) 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Need expert template experience
User:The Thadman/Userbox/PolCompass is still adding people to all the deleted political compass categories. The code is complicated and I'm not sure how to get it to remove the deleted categories while saving the non-deleted ones. I asked the creator to remove them over 2 weeks ago and was ignored. If anyone can take a look at it, that would be great. Several of the categories are high up on Special:Wantedcategories and it would be nice to eiliminate them to discourage recreation. VegaDark 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it. Hopefully not wrath. Xiner (talk, email) 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like that did it. VegaDark 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cockroaches procedural question
I hope it's been resolved
 * Procedural question - As Xiner was the closing admin, I presume that he could have merely changed his closure result to: Relisting for more discussion, rather than this hybrid WP:DRV/WP:UCFD discussion that seems to be taking place here? - jc37 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I intend this to be a relisting, but I wasn't sure how to do that. If you could fix the listing, I'd appreciate it. Xiner (talk, email) 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Typically, just remove the top and bottom closure templates, and copy/paste the discussion to the date of the relisting, leaving a link to the new discussion at the location of the old discussion if the move places the discussion on a different page. At this point, to enact a relisting will require merging the discussions. Otherwise, I suppose this can just be treated as a "renomination". (In which case, you could just change your closure comments.) Which would you prefer? - jc37 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it. Should the past participants be notified? Xiner (talk, email) 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Testing the waters
How'd everyone feel about a group nom of the pet usercats? It seems to me that the pet article and talk pages of individual breeds, as well as various WikiProjects, would be more scholarly sources of info. WP:NOT a social ring, so I'm not sure what use these categories serve. There's also the Wikipedians by pet document for those that insist on declaring their pets. Xiner (talk, email) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it can help cooperation.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How? Xiner (talk, email) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support renaming them all to "Interested in", as I feel that could support collaboration. Knowing who owns what pet, however, is not useful to categorize. VegaDark 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A project for the ambitious
Merging subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in watching sports with those who play. I'd like to see how it pans out. Xiner (talk, email) 22:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the merging. - jc37 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisting discussions
When relisting a discussion, I presume that the discussion should continue for the full 5 days before we close it?

I ask because we've now had several relistings that were closed in less than 3 days.

Or are we making a guideline that such relistings may be speedily closed (after 2 days) once a consensus appears to have been reached? - jc37 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regular discussions are supposed to run 7 days last time I checked, but I could be wrong. I don't have a problem with an early closure, though, if the result is obviously not going to change in the remaining couple of days or so.  After relisting, a discussion can be closed at any time a consensus looks to have emerged, according to discussions I have read at deletion review. You don't have to wait any extra amount of time. VegaDark 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to those discussions at DRV? - jc37 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go VegaDark 06:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm not understanding the link. The first nomination was 10+ days, the second lasted 6 days. What am I missing? - jc37 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was run the required five days, there is no requirement to run it for five more days after it's being relisted, just enough to collect more opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC). VegaDark 06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it did run the required days. Or am I missing something? - jc37 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios. The Afd was relisted the same day it was closed. It ran for more than 10 days, but that was all before it was relisted. Only a few hours passed between relisting and closing. VegaDark 07:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get what you are saying now. I thought you meant it should be listed an additional 7 days after relisting. I was under the assumption that a discussion wouldn't be relisted until it is time to close the UCFD. I wouldn't relist anything until it is closure time. But if something is relisted before its closure time, then yes, it should go the minimum required days. VegaDark 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, It looks to me as if everything that has been recently relisted has had around 6 days of discussion time. What discussions are you referring to?  Or was I right the first time in assuming you were talking about additional days? VegaDark 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(restarting the indent) Ok, here are the three links I was looking at:
 * Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios
 * Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12 (
 * Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios (2nd nomination)

As I now look over the first link, I notice what I didn't notice til now... It was relisted at the bottom. So now I see what you were talking about. I was considering the 2nd nomination the "relisting" that you were talking about. Re-read the above with that in mind, and perhaps it will be clearer.

The problem with trialanderrors comment that a relisting can be closed at any time, is that it violates even the speedy rules. This seems like a bureaucratic loophole. - jc37 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, now I understand what you were saying. You might want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if you don't like it. Personally I don't have a problem with it. VegaDark 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Alumni usercats
Another one. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)