Wikipedia talk:User categorisation/Archive 1

To WikiProject or not to WikiProject
Hello all, created the preliminary page. I have a few questions of the community and those who would be contributing... First of all, should this be made an actual WikiProject (as in, should we put in the standard WikiProject template, add it to the WikiProject category, and all of the other work that goes into doing that sort of thing), or is it simply not large enough to warrant its own project? Thoughts? Ideas? Questions? Answers? Please post them all here, also please feel free to post to my talk page and contact me on AIM, my s/n is the same as here (thereverendeg). --thereverendeg 01:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems active enough and has more than enough participants. So I think this page should be moved to WikiProject User categorization. Oh, and shouldn't the participants list be put into a user category instead? I mean, do as you teach... But you should perhaps wait a little to create your WikiProject user category since there is right now a vote going on here about how to name such categories. --David Göthberg 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen this on quite a few WikiProject lists, so I think that this is generally considered a WikiProject. However, from what I can tell, it hasn't had much activity in a while (WP:UCFD is a distinct entity that came around long after this project became inactive). If you have any ideas on how to spark this project again, you're welcome to it. By the way, I would support renaming this to WikiProject User Categorization (project names are usually capitalized). —Cswrye 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this an official project supported by who and is it active and who monitors it?
 * Where can I find policy on how someone categorises themselves 1. from a location 2. living in a location or 3. interested in a location?
 * Is the purpose of user categorisation to find users interested in something or to find users in your own geographical area interested in wikipedia or both or something else. I have grave concerns over how this project may upset many users as they do not understand how user and other categorisation work under this new policy. Who decided that the old ways were bad and these new ways are the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NilssonDenver (talk • contribs).
 * As I mentioned above, this is listed on several WikiProject lists, so I think that it is considered an official WikiProject, although it hasn't been active in a while. There are no policies specifically governing user categories. I proposed a guideline at Guidelines for user categories, but it didn't receive much discussion and got marked as historical. For the time being, the only policies and guidelines for user categories are the same ones that cover article categories, although user categories are generally given much more leniency.
 * As for the location categories, there really isn't much precendent for them. I think that the original intent of this project was to work on the "Wikipedians in location" categories. At the time, there weren't many "Wikipedians from location", "Wikipedians born in location", or "Wikipedians interested in location" categories (and by comparison, there still aren't many of those). I think that these have been brought up on WP:UCFD a couple of times, but there's not a solid consensus on it yet. The issue that many people have is that we already have lots of "Wikipedians in location" categories, and adding the "Wikipedians from location" and other categories would greatly multiply the number of user categories to keep up with, especially if it's not clear how these categories would aid in building the encyclopedia. —Cswrye 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons
From the article:


 * This change makes sense for inumerable reasons!

You know, I agree that this makes more sense, but it would clearly be better if you listed some of the reasons that this change would be for the better. (Also, innumerable has two ns.) Brighterorange 15:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this fall under that category of things you should fix instead of complaining about? How long would it take you to fix this? Maybe a minute, but probably not even that long. --thereverendeg 16:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The wiki medium is a poor relational database (and an absolutely terrible geodatabase). I feel like pushing for the use of some other free/open geographic address-book would be a much better idea. Perhaps a separate service run on a Wikimedia server...or integrated with another open effort? In the meantime, the lists seem to offer nearly-equivalent functionality, I actually think they're better in some ways (like being able to tack on a comment or two after putting your name, or organize into neighborhoods more easily). Metaeducation 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template for tag
I was thinking of creating a template CSS for the  tag called Template:Cat-class. This sort of thing has been done before with the Template:Prettytable.

The initial template would include the style="margin:1em; text-align:center; padding:.25em; border:1.0px gray dashed;" information, and the tag would look like this in each category page:

 ... ...

This means that if you want to change the properties of the classification, you only need to do it once and it will have a global effect on all the categories. Thoughts anyone? – AxSkov ( T ) 10:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Question on clasification.
How would Category:Scandinavian wikipedians be clasified in this scheme? It's mainly a sub-category for Norwegian, Danish and Swedish users, but I see a few users are also directly in the category. None of those categories where created as part of this project as far as I can tell, I was planning to start on the Norwegian users list and redirect the old Category:Norwegian users (only 3 users listed anyway) category to Categoy:Wikipedians in Norway for the sake of completenes, but I'm a bit unsure how to treat the Category:Scandinavian wikipedians category (Category:Norwegian users is a subcat of it currently.). In many ways it would be redundant because ALL Norwegians, Danes and Swedes are Scandinavians but some people might object if I take unilateral action without discussing it first.

P.S. It can't be compared with Category:Wikipedians in Basque Country, that is a small area of two countries, but Scandinavia is on a "higher level" than the nations it encompas, wich cause a problem because no other nations are subclassed unter they continent or region. --Sherool 12:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Scandinavian wikipedians could be compared to that of the Caribbean Wikipedians. As I see it, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish users are sub-categories of the Scandinavian wikipedians category. Regarding the redirection of Norwegian users, another option would be to redirect to Norwegian wikipedians to conform with Scandinavian wikipedians, or just leave it as it is, so there isn't a dead page. – AxSkov ( T ) 13:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Argentina
Does it make sense for Argentina to be the only category with "of" instead of "in"? (Category:Wikipedians of Argentina) PeepP 14:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an old one and needs to be changed immediately. – AxSkov ( T ) 15:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was about to list it on speedy renaming, but noticed there is already a Category:Wikipedians in Argentina. Seems thereverendeg has created that, and it says "of" should be used instead. I presume that is an error, and we should just move the content from the "of" page to the "in" page, then list "of" on category deletions? PeepP 17:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a section "categories to rename". A nice side effect of the automatic script output was to show misspelled categories. PeepP 18:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is like many of the suggested renames, the Category name being questioned (inconsistent with most) was the ORIGINAL category - it already existed and there were many people listed through it, so I considered it wiser to keep the old category. For the sake of consistency I understand your discussion and I am going to count myself NEUTRAL as I personally don't think either name is superior to the other. In fact, 'of' is probably more appropriate but by the time I had figured that I had created dozens of categories and, because I am not an admin and cannot delete or rename pages, did not want to leave tons of dead pages lying around.

Some comments
Firstly, why are some categories named "Wikipedians in Country", while others are "Countryan Wikipedians""? I understand that the categories not only mark present location, but also nationality (i.e. belonging to an ethnic group) and association. If it is so, then all of these categories should be called "Countryan Wikipedians".

Then, why do the subpages in Wikipedians have notices saying the page moved, not a redirect? This is not very important though, as they will be deleted soon anyway.

PeepP 17:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason for the different names are simply that a handfull of categories existed prior to this project. As for why not "countryan Wikipedians" see Wikipedia talk:Category titles for a in-depth debate over that very issue. For the record I support the "Foo in/of/from Country/Province/City" naming scheme (because it allows for maximum consiustency, not all nations have a well known adjective form, and some don't have one at all) for categories, as do I would guess the founder of this project. --Sherool 23:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel there needs to be consistenty throughout this project and "Category:Wikipedian in Country/Province/City" seems to be the best form. As such these need to be changed to be brought into line.
 * Category:Wikipedians of Argentina &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Argentina
 * Category:Australian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Australia
 * Category:Australian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Australia
 * Category:Bangladeshi Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Bangladesh
 * Category:Canadian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Canada
 * Category:Caribbean Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean
 * Category:Chilean Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Chile
 * Category:Wikipedians of Costa Rica &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Costa Rica
 * Category:Danish Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Denmark
 * Category:Hong Kong Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Hong Kong
 * Category:Indian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in India
 * Category:Israeli Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Israel
 * Category:Wikipedians of Mexico &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Mexico
 * Category:Peruvian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Peru
 * Category:Filipino Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in the Philippines
 * Category:Russian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in the Russia
 * Category:Saint Lucian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Saint Lucia
 * Category:Scandinavian Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Scandinavia
 * Category:Swedish Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Sweden
 * Category:UK Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in the UK
 * Category:Indiana Wikipedians &rarr; Category:Wikipedians in Indiana
 * -- Ianblair23 09:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Wikipedia is inconsistent; as long as there is only one cat per region, and they are alphabetized correctly in a supercat, leave the %*^%*^ things alone. Septentrionalis 16:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have essentially responded to this above in the discussion titled 'Argentina' - I have thought about the issues of consistency and meaning, and basically I didn't want to leave dead pages lying around. Maybe create seperate categories for ethnicity/location/relation? Like I said above, I think that 'of' would pretty much cover all of them. However, this would mean I could theoretically list myslef as a 'Wikipedian of The Netherlands' because of my heritage, but I've never even been to The Netherlands. I am counting myself nutral on this issue and will go with what you more experianced Wikipedians go for, as I am pretty much unable to decide what to do. --thereverendeg 03:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Dead pages" are not an issue IMHO. Especialy categories, if a category is empty (for more than 24 hours) it qualifies for speedy deletion, just add

or some such, and it will be deleted in due course the next time an admin check the list of candidates (asuming he/she agrees that it fits the criterea). If the category already have more pages in it that you can comfortably move on your own you can send it to CfD instead and request a rename to fit the project "standard", if people agree a boot will be tasked with recategorising pages. However at the moment CfD tend to put anyting related to countries on hold pending the outcome of Category titles, so going though them is currently likely to take longer than doing it manualy. --Sherool 08:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First, my apologies if I'm simply regurgitating issues that have been brought forth and addressed with authority before. It's late and this is to be my last edit before I fall unconcious at my desk. :) The new formatting is Wikipedians in Country, which states location. Fine. But to use Armenia as an example, the new category says, Wikipedians who live in or are associated with Armenia. What if your association with Armenia is that you are Armenian, but happen to live elsewhere? Whilst the general Wikipedians/Armenia may have covered this before, the new categories specifically target location, rather than affiliation or involvement of any other sort. Now, to cope with things such as nationality or citizenship, new categories must be created such as Wikipedians of Armenian Nationality. This doesn't seem to be an improvement. I hope I'm missing something big which clears this up, but I can't see it at the moment. - Hayter 00:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Objections
What about the main reason why these lists has been established ? From the Wikipedians Page: "*Special:Listusers is an automatic listing; however, due to technical limitations, it does not list all users."
 * The Mediawiki software cannot display all items of so big categories and even if it could, there is a second pracital reason why these lists were established:
 * Google and other search engines see only the first 200 entries of a category due to the database character of the URLs. Therefore i humbly ask who decided about this radical change and was the public asked ? Maybe a poll should be started before moving so much information. Thanks, --Leopard 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I see some reasons why categories might be preferred over lists, I agree that this is a radical change that deserves at least more publicity before execution. Also:


 * 1) If you're going to change people's user pages, they should at least be warned.
 * 2) I prefer not to have such a template on my user page.
 * 3) The general category titles are still under discussion. Please keep in mind that the following aren't always synonymous:
 * 4) "Adjective foo"
 * 5) "Foo of bar"
 * 6) "Foo in bar"
 * 7) "Foo from bar"
 * 8) "Foo interested in or involved with, etc. bar"
 * Maurreen (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is another problem that arises if you change from lists to categories:
 * Many users have written explanations, refinements and comments that would be lost if you change to categories. Since these lists have community building as a purpose that would cut its usefullness quite a lot. --Leopard 01:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the lateness of my response, I was out of town on business and without the internet for the last few days. First of all, I want to say that I am no longer going to be editing user's pages ever, and I urge other participants not to either. Instead, please visit their talk pages and let them know about changes, so they can choose to add or not to add themselves. Also, about the Google deal... From what I've read on Wikipedia, it is not supposed to be an issue of one users' rank on Google over another. Wikipedia isn't Google. I will try to find where I read this and post it hear soon. Also, I don't think that any of the individual lists on the Wikipedians pages have more than 200 entries. I could be wrong about this, but most areas can be broken up into smaller areas to cure this problem anyhow (example - Category:Wikipedians in New York vs Category:Wikipedians in Upstate NY). --thereverendeg 03:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, regarding the editing of other user's pages, but sometimes it is necessary when they have added themselves to a catagory but not sorted themselves within that catagory (ie, piping). This is all that I've been doing, sorting users that already exist within categories not adding users. – AxSkov ( T ) 06:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I created the Usercat_msg template and added instructions on the page on how to use it, so that editing user pages won't be necessary. PeepP 12:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I must've missed this the first time through. I did edit a few User Pages and left notes on each and every individuals user talk pages.  Then I waited.  I wanted to see what would happen...I actually met some nice people!!  But, I've begun just noting user talk pages with the request that THEY manage their user page to add the category and remove their own name from the respective list.  I'll note the project page on those states that have had all of the users notified.  Perhaps they could be cleaned up in a few weeks if people still don't remove their names??  I hope I haven't stepped on any toes in proceeding--not my intention at all...just really wanted to help.   Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist 04:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Maurreen (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the lists will be kept and the categories are a supplement ? Regarding Google: I'm not concerned about the rank on Google over another but about the content. Google has found the userpages through these lists. Do you know if the bugs mentioned on Wikipedians are still causing trouble ? “due to technical limitations, it does not list all users.” --Leopard 06:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Listuser page has absolutely nothing to do with this project or the Wikipedians pages. It doesn't categorize users. So far the lists haven't been kept as changes are made, because it would be redundant.... I mean, reverts back to the way they were could always happen, but it seems like the lists are very unmanageable, unsorted, not systematic or dynamic, and probably take up a lot of space.

Um, was there ever any effort to gain consensus on this? I'm just asking. Personally, I like lists much better than categories. But if the community says these changes must be made, that's OK with me.-- Visviva 11:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Privacy
I've just discovered this project owing to a couple of categories being added to my user page. I want to preach caution. While I have no objection to the categories that have been added so far (I certainly don't want them removed) and IANAL, I do see a few problems.


 * IMO there's every chance that Wikipedia is already breaching Australian privacy legislation here. We have crossed a very significant line from allowing people to voluntarily display information about themselves, to maintaining a database containing this and other information about them.
 * Even if we aren't already in breach of any law (and how to cover the Internet is problematic in all such issues), privacy is an up-and-coming hot topic, and we should be very careful of it. This is not something that's essential to Wikipedia's mission.
 * And even if these categories and others currently proposed are all harmless, where do we draw the line? If the categorisation project decides to list people by interest, for example, I guess I'd get flagged as interested in sexology because of the work I've done on the Kinsey reports. Combined with other flags or even on its own, this might attract attention I would not welcome. While I've already asked for this by allowing my userid to appear in the article history, I think Wikipedia should be very wary of increasing my exposure. I already get quite enough spam emails promising me cheap Viagra, willing ladies (photographically and otherwise), and anatomical miracles guaranteed to help keep them happy.

Food for thought? Andrewa 20:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your (and others') user page was only edited because you had already listed yourself on the Wikipedia user listings, and it was just converting the existing public information from one form to another.
 * This is not done anymore, as we now send a message to users to notify them that they have the option of choosing to use the category system or not.
 * Users won't be automatically added to the "by field of interest" categories outside of converting the old list. PeepP 21:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds like progress. A few more questions.


 * 1. Has the project considered privacy issues? Where?


 * 2. What Wikipedia procedures and policies are relevant? Do we need some new ones to ensure that the (commendable) measures and decisions you mention above are in fact implemented, and any changes to them are discussed?


 * I'm also a bit concerned about the phrase just converting the existing public information from one form to another. As I tried to point out above, that's not necessarily a sound defence on privacy matters. As soon as you start to manipulate personally identifiable data, especially data stored on a computer, you start to have some responsibilities and duties of care which I think Wikipedia might do well to avoid.


 * But thanks for the reply. As I said, progress. Andrewa 01:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Categorisation is volontary, just as lists were. If you don't want to be in a list, remove yourself from it, idem for categories. --Army1987 07:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Windows XP users
I've suggested that Category:Windows XP users be renamed to Category:Windows users (or Category:Microsoft Windows users) to be more broad. (see Categories for deletion) …Markaci 2005-08-4 T 18:18:55 Z

Regarding the "Populating existing categories" instructions.
I removed the instruction for replacing the old list pages with a redirect to the category. The reason is that there are technical difficulties with redirecting to a category from a "normal" page.

If you redirect to a category from a Wikipedia or main namespace page then the current wikisoftware doesn't "realise" that it's showing a category, and so only the category text is shown, the list of pages in the article does not show, giving the false impression that it's an empty category. IMHO it's better to just use the "old" method and provide a link to the category. At least untill such a time as the redirect problem has been fixed. --Sherool 15:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought the "redirect notice" was only used because of convention. I'll change back some of the Wikipedians/ subpages I redirected. PeepP 15:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it did seem like a good idea, up untill I tried the redirect I had created. To illustrate the problem see the difference between this link and this one. I better go and check if this bug is known. --Sherool 15:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I stated in the instructions that redirects won't work, so that someone like me won't come around again, being too bold. ;) PeepP 16:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This "project" and CfD
I think we should try to hammer out some kind of policy regarding user categories. Right now a bunch of "Wikipedian" categories are up for deletion on CFD with reasons like "silly" or "vanity" and so on. While I won't loose any sleep over loosing stuff like "left handed wikipedians" I don't think categories exclusively used on user pages should be held to the same standards as "regular" categories. As things stand however there are no special "rules" for this kind of categories so deletionists can pretty much wipe out most of it citing existing policy for notability, patent nonsense and things like that.

I think our first order of business should be to get this thing aproved as an official Wikiproject (not sure how that works though), then we can claim "ownership" over Wikipedian categories and work out a consensus on things like naming conventions, deletion criterea and so on for that kind of categories. Without that I fear that lists on Wikipedians by hobby and interests and what not will get shot right back down if we convert them to categories. --Sherool 16:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be "official". A wikiproject is a wikiproject, which means nothing but a group of users with a common goal. See the discussion mentioned below; what I believe you should do is consider what kinds of categorization are appropriate, and what are not (e.g. users by country is useful, users by handedness is silly). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9. I have worked on getting all of the users moved from Category:Indiana Wikipedians and over to Category:Wikipedians in Indiana.  Now, there is a move underway to reverse that and delete the category covered under this project.  Please vote on the CfD at your convenience.   Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 16:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delteing Wikipedians categories
There is (hopefully it gets off the ground) a conversation on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion about when it is appropriate to delete Wikipedians categories. Check it out if you're interested. -Seth Mahoney 01:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Supplementary not Replacement of Lists
As I have said above there are many problems that this Project creates and it does not seem to have been a poll whther this alternative System is wished or positive. I have found a nice example for my objection concerning information loss: The page   for Wikipedians from Alabama USA has been replaced by categories. It has the following info: " Jimbo Wales is originally from Huntsville, Alabama and is a graduate of both Auburn University and the University of Alabama

User:Kayellen is a Huntsville, Alabama native and graduated from the University of Alabama in Huntsville with a Master of Science in Management." As you can see on Jimmy Wales page there is no category besides Babylon english and german, and it does not mention that he is a graduate of Auburn University and the University of Alabama. From User:Kayellen you cannot get the university she graduated either. And you cannot expect to have so many popular Wikipedians that they have their own Encyclopedia entry like Jimbo Wales. Therefore by deleting the lists you loose a lot of information that was useful and necessary. The main purpose of these lists was that people with common interests or common geography can meet and build communites. By making big categories you degrade it to some kind of datamining and nobody can add someting personal like in these lists. That was just 1 simple example. These lists are full of interesting bits.

I have nothing against an additional system of categories but let the people communicate and conserve these lists. The most objections on this discussion page have not been resolved positively. People with strange characters do not appear in the categories. The categories themselves get deleted because they sound silly. That is not what should happen with valuable information. --Leopard 13:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the major problem. It's up to each user what information they want to share about themselves, if they don't mention theyr university or such on theyr userpage changes are they don't want to share such info. If they do they will probably add it once they realise that the list is gone. In the case of Jimbo Wales that information belong in his main article, not a list of users. There are categories for graduates from various universities too for people who consider that important information. Now granted people seem far more "fanatical" about deleting categories that lists so that might be a problem, but so far all the "non-silly" and non-empty categories have survived CFD (not counting mergers and renames), and hopefully we'll get a policy on such categories to prevent people nominating them for deletion claiming "vanity" or "self promotion" and such (someone recently nominated Special:Listusers for deletion as vanity!). Also a "problem" with lists is that people sometimes add other users to such lists based on contributions they have made without the knowledge or consent of the user beeing added, with categories there is far less risk of people beeing unknowingly categorised because most users monitor theyr userpage. --Sherool 17:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Further on this topic, I think that the Wikipedians by pet article is far more useful than it would be by being splintered into dozens of category pages, plus you'd lose all the info about types of pets that makes it interesting. If I had had to add myself to six different categories ("users who own border collies", "users who own huskies" etc.) and maybe twice for each mixed-breed dog ("users who own mixed-breed Labradors", "users who own mixed-breed German Shepherds" etc.)--jeez, forget it. I certainly wouldn't go browsing dozens of dog-related pages to see minimal info about other users.  And simply "users who own dogs" is boring boring boring.  This is definitely a case where what's here is useful, compact, easy to use and read, and informative, and the replacement possible structure is none of these. Elf | Talk 20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

the spanish Wiki project
In the spanish wikipedia the list to categories is near to be finished. this will been possible tanks to


 * The use of messages inviting to the user to categorize your user page, this a example of the message used in the spanish wikipedia:

Category:Wikipedians in
Hello  this message is a invitation to categorize your userpage in the category: Category:Wikipedians in or in the adecuate sub-category and erasing your name from the equivalent list since the lists of users are in process of being transformed into categories. Remember: You can categorize your user page in more than one category. example: your actual location and your origin country.

for more info see: User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location

Saludos. ~

example:

Category:Wikipedians of Mexico
Hello  this message is a invitation to categorize your userpage in the category: Category:Wikipedians of Mexico or in the adecuate sub-category and erasing your name from the equivalent list since the lists of users are in process of being transformed into categories. Remember: You can categorize your user page in more than one category. example: your actual location and your origin country.

for more info see: User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location

Saludos. ~


 * Also location templates are in developement this template inform the location place and origin country of the wikipedian and categorize by country your userpage

you can see this location templates in the Wipedia location article in spanish:es:Wikipedia:Ubicación and a example of the template is in my user page


 * another diference between the spanish and english categories is: in the english category exist continents, countries and minor areas like territories, zones, regions, etc at the same category level. in the spanish version the minor areas are categorized in to the relative contry or countries.


 * The spanish version use "Wikipedistas de.." (Wikipedians of) to include both wikipedians in... and wikipedians from...

See:


 * es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Wikipedistas por países (wikipedians by country category)
 * es:Wikipedia:Ubicación (Wikipedia location article)

--Mnts 08:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Usercat templates and the broader scope of user categorization
Hi there. This is a nice project, pretty well organized. I have some questions and thoughts about it, though, that I wish to express here (and hopefully get some feedback, of course):

Ddawson 00:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This project seems to focus on the geographic categories. But what about other categories? Wouldn't they benefit from this project's organization? I know some of these categories have been accused of vanity and the like, but some of them are definitely useful.
 * 2) Related to the above, I see there are templates with names like 'Usercat', but which are specifically geographic. I can see the reason at least for this project to have started as geography-centric, but do the templates have to have such overly generic (and slightly misleading) names? (I know, it's probably too late to fix it now.) Anyway, I think it might be useful to have such templates for other hierarchies (though they may or may not refer to the categorization project, depending on whether the project wants anything to do with them).
 * 3) BTW, would you consider removing e.g. the instructions about categorizing oneself ("To add yourself to this list...") from the Usercat* templates and moving them to a separate template? This would allow adding templates of the sort mentioned above without writing those instructions over and over. (I should know better. Maybe when MediaWiki gets better...) Also, it might (or might not) be helpful to say why one should include the   code. (I get tired of seeing a bunch of people listed unknowingly under 'U'. :-) An explanation might emphasize the problem. But would it be effective? I don't know.)

User location templates
template format

EXAMPLE:

this categorise the user page in wikipedians in New york And looks like this example:

available codes:

notes:the original location templates project in Wikipedia en español is an idea by es:Usuario:Ejmeza --Mnts 09:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * us-ny= New York State, US

Taiwan
The current classification of "Republic of China" (Taiwan) as a sub-category of "China" (Classification: Wikipedians: By location: China: Republic of China: Taiwan) is potentially problematic because it involves a POV; such classification would be more likely endorsed by those in China than by those in Taiwan (see Legal status of Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan). Some potential alternatives are to 1) list "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" at the same level as "China" as opposed to a sub-classification, or 2) list "Taiwan" non-alphabetically, as in the CIA World Factbook. I have temporarily removed myself from the current listing system. Shawnc 21:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that's why the Wikipedia became more and more bad. (Refer to Perspective: Wikipedia and the nature of truth) Here is not a free, scientific and opinion-objective encyclopedia anymore. I stand with you, Shawnc. Morton

Caribbean Wikipedians' List
We have a list of Caribbean Wikipedians which is associated with the Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. I was rather unpleasantly shocked to find it redirected to Category:Caribbean Wikipedians. For one, the cat is almost empty, and for another, it has subcats like Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago. While I am from TT, I am not in TT, so I cannot comfortably add myself to that cat - despite the fact that I have created most of the Trinidad and Tobago-related articles. So by removing the list, not only is content lost, but whatever content was there is now likely to be scattered among over a dozen "Wikipedians in Foo" categories. It isn't like we created that list out of vanity - it is a working resource associated with the CWNB. It's a place where you can make contacts for with the aim of advancing the project. At the very least I would think that someone would have the courtesy of discussing the change before making it. For one, your choice of cat names leaves me with no useful location-related cat (I am in Oklahoma, but that bit of info is little more than trivia since I am not working on or knowledgeable about Oklahoma-related articles). For another thing, you are telling people to delete a useful list of people interested in a set of articles. If this is not acceptable, will someone please transfer the content to somewhere that you deem acceptable, and please do let us know where that is. Guettarda 04:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do Chinese Overseas get their own category?
Just wondering. There is no category for 'Vietnamese overseas', which would be highly relevant. Besides which, what about all those other nationalities overseas? Brits overseas? Americans overseas? Australians overseas? Japanese overseas? Is their being overseas somehow significantly different from Chinese being overseas? Bathrobe 07:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible future location of Wikipedians/Canada talkpage?
I could not help noticing that the Talkpage of Category:Canadian Wikipedians has never been used. Would this be a good place for it?--Rmky87 20:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Instructions are not very clear
Either the instructions for adding oneself to the new categories are unclear, or there is some sort of bug involved, or I'm thick. I tried adding myself I tried adding the text in the box to my user page as per the instructions, substituting "User:Palmiro" for "PAGENAME", and something weird happened. So I added just the bit before the pipe, and it worked fine... but what are we meant to do? I think the instructions need to be clarified. Palmiro | Talk 23:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you don't actually have to substitute anything for 'pagename', just leave the word as it is, and the wiki software should do it for you, I think -- Gurch 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bot
Just curious whether anyone would be interested in a bot that could easily help the transition... --AllyUnion (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing, although it looks like we got here too late! Martin 12:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User category namespace?
Shouldn't user categories have their own namespace? It seems like pages in the Category: namespace should only be categories of articles, and categories of users should be in a separate User category: namespace. —Keenan Pepper 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

in X Place?!!
I have been on WikiVacation for a while, so just started paying attention to this. As one or two folks above have said, the new "User in Location" scheme makes absolutely no sense to me. Most of the places I can contribute information about are not the place I live in right now. I would be okay with having a new categorization scheme for who's where, but to do away with a way of listing oneself by places one is interested in and has information to offer about makes, I said, no sense to me. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just include yourself in the category for where you live and leave it at that -- Gurch 13:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

D&D Alignment
The old Wikipedians list for D&D Alignment has been converted to a category system already, all the users are now in the category lists as well as the Wikipedians list. I am going to delete the Wikipedians list and put a Replacement notice there.

Wikipedians in high school & Wikipedians by Erdös number
I have contacted everyone who was on the high school list and not in the corresponding category, and I am now going to delete the page and replace it with a redirect.--Cooksey 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also made new category pages for Erdös numbers and redirected the previous Erdös number Wikipedians page.--Cooksey 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused about category names
My home page has which links to a different list to. Which should be used? Are they going to merge? Should I include both? -- SGBailey 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Template causing recursion
I've noticed that Template:Usercat-1 is causing recursion in a few categories, for example Category:Wikipedians in Alberta and Category:Wikipedians in California. That is, these categories are self-inclusive. I'd fix it myself, but I figured I'd leave it to someone who has more familiarity with the use of this template; specifically, should the template be changed, or should their use in various cats change? Mind matrix  17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The similar Usercat-2 doesn't cause category recursion. However, recursion may be caused by showing user templates in the category instructions, e.g. User AB or User California, where the templates link to the categories. In that case I suggest you subst: the template in the instructions and then remove the category link from the resulting text. --Eddi (Talk) 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Usercat-1 was designed for countries. See: Classification for some other templates. I'd be happy fix or revise these as needed. Let me know. -- Samuel Wantman 01:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, I don't think the problems are caused by the Usercat templates, but other templates in the category instructions. --Eddi (Talk) 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the Category:Wikipedians in Alberta page. --Renice 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Usercat Templates
I wanted to use Usercat-2, but the top line (about the deprecated page) doesn't apply to all categories... What should I be using, instead? Is a new set of templates needed? Could someone show me by doing Category:Wikipedians in Leicestershire correctly? I'll then fix other counties. Thanks. --StuartBrady 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Geographical Association
The text "or are associated with" should be included in the Usercat templates as this assists proper classification of Wikipedians. I agree that there are categories for interests and ethnicities, but a user should be able to identify with more than one location. For example a student who is studying in another country should be able to categorise themselves according to both their "home" and "host" countries. Otherwise it would necessitate creating a parallel set of "ex-pat" categories. Furthermore it would be necessary for a Wikipedian to change their identity each time they move country even though they do not have to change their passport.--Vivenot 13:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Automatic addition of users
Please see the Category:Northern Irish Wikipedians.

I have tried to create this category in line with the principle of standardisation which seems to be an objective of this project. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to automatically add users who have added the userbox to their userpage.

Can anyone help rectify this? --Mal 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep's mass removal of categories from templates
User:MarkSweep has just done a mass removal of category tags from Userbox templates. Basically rending most of this user categorisation empty. What is the current view on this? --Salix alba (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Eve though I like userboxes and their use, I don't think we need categories of people who drink coffee and the like. A better place to discuss this would be Userbox policy poll or even Mark's talk page. - Hayter 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians with an age
I just noticed Category:Wikipedians with an age sitting out there. It sorts of fits with Userboxes/Life but I'm not sure where to put the category. The question is, this category is creating a ton of red-links, like Category:10 year old wikipedians, Category:20 year old wikipedians, etc. Wouldn't it be easier to have the category split into subcats by age, and depopulate the main category? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Taskforce and project approach
The taskforce or project approach is to go at it from the standpoint of first, communities of place, then of interest, but with the goal of improving Wikipedia. -- CQ 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

cfd (again) on Wikipedians by politics
Please go to Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_19/Wikipedians_by_politics and discuss this matter (again). January 4 2006 and December 18 2005 --Facto 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians by Project
I don't see anything where wikipedians can be catagorized by the wikipedia projects there working on.--Scott3 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To everyone: Right now there is a vote about how to name categories for Wikipedians in WikiProjects going on here: User categories for discussion. It could need the input and/or help from you people in this categorization project. --David Göthberg 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What about other user categories?
What about?, say, This user likes manga, where when you put the userbox, you get categorized also?100110100 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Project Name
Shouldn't this project be spelled Categori z ation so that ?? Renice 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) it can be found in a search
 * 2) it matches other Wikipedia uses of the word, e.g., Categorization


 * Moved it --Renice 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehm, shouldn't this whole project be named "Wikipedia:WikiProject User categorization"? That is, I am pretty sure this page should be moved to WikiProject User categorization. --David Göthberg 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplication of clean up list?
I'm confused... are these duplicates? ??? --Renice 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User_categorization
 * User_categorisation/link_cleanup

'In' versus 'from'
Not all users are in a location but want to be known as being from that location. Is Category:Place_of_origin_user_templates still to be used? --Renice 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical categorization of Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians is meant to be categorized alphabetically. However, some people have only put onto their userpage when you should put on their userpages. So what is going to happen to all these people ? --l E oN2323 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for user categories
In response to the discussion about the validity of user categories at Categories for discussion, I wrote up a proposal for guidelines for user categories. Any input on this proposal would be welcome. Also note that there is now a separate process from CfD called user categories for discussion. —Cswrye 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)