Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/September 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | User | Archive
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 19 September 2008 (+sep 9th). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 2008 October 2008 >

Note: if the discussion that you are looking for is from this month, but is not on this page, it may still be at WP:UCFD.

September 9

Category:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete, but there seems to be consensus that "who like" should not be used in the category name, so Rename Category:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series) to Category:Wikipedians who watch The Dead Zone (TV series). Feel free to group nominate the members of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series for further discussion. - jc37 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like The Dead Zone (TV series) - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: A category with no benefits at all. Cats with users who like something tend to be bad ideas. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes it certainly belongs at UCFD. That also makes your delete void, surely? I don't know if this should be kept or not, but the nominator is wrong when he says, "Cats with users who like something tend to be bad ideas." No, we have many of them, that's why we have the huge cat "Category:Wikipedians by interest", and have Userboxes too. Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 8. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series. - Icewedge (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who watch The Dead Zone (TV series) per Wikipedia:User categories, which says, "If in the userbox content, the verb (see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content) is one of preference (enjoys, likes, loves, etc.), replace it with a more specific verb when selecting the category name. For example, "This user enjoys J. R. R. Tolkien" could be categorised as Category:Wikipedians who read J. R. R. Tolkien." Deamon138 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, you should lump everything in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series, to be renamed as Category:Wikipedians who watch TITLE. They are all named with "who like". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite right, 99% of them do. So I did a little bit of investigating, and came across Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. This seems to do the opposite of WP:User categories, which as I quoted above, wants us not to use "like" or "enjoy" in userboxes or categories, and instead use an more accurate verb like "watch" or "read". It seems that we should work out which advice we should follow. Does anyone know exactly why we can't use "like" in a category or userbox according to that guideline? If there's no good reason, then we should change the WP:User categories to reconcile itself with the other guideline. If there is a good reason, then we will need to change all those categories as Twas Now has pointed out, <sarcasm>which will be fantastic fun</sarcasm>. But I can't think of a good reason. Can anyone else? Deamon138 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see, silly me, I didn't read the words closely enough. Wikipedia:User categories says, "If in the userbox content, the verb (see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content) is one of preference (enjoys, likes, loves, etc.), replace it with a more specific verb when selecting the category name." So we are allowed to have "like" in the userbox, but not in the category title. The guidelines don't contradict each other. However, my question still stands: why shouldn't we put "like" and so forth in the titles of user categories? Deamon138 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because people can have very many things they like, but only a few things they actually have time to do, read, watch, etc. This whittles out those people who tend to say "I like this and this and this and this and…" until every aspect of pop culture has been categorized. These people can't be expected to help with collaboration, because (in general) the more things someone enjoys, the less knowledge they might have about any specific thing. Also, those who actually read/watch/do/etc. are in a better position to know what the fark they are talking about. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be the reason. It seems acceptable to me anyway. Deamon138 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A category that lists people who like a show has no value what-so-ever. It's a "who likes this" type of thing. Now, if it were called Category:Wikipedians interested in The Dead Zone, that would be better. The word interest is better than like because it shows the general aspect of perspective editing of the topic. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point "interested in" is another good alternative (and one that should be included in the Category naming guideline). This makes complete sense because the parent category is Category:Wikipedians by interest in a fantasy TV series and you can follow that up three steps to Category:Wikipedians by interest (and each intermediate Catg has "interest" in it). So the precedent is there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But Wikipedia is NOT myspace or a social blog. We could have an infinite amount of cats that deal with personal likes. "Category:Wikipedians who like to pass gas", "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy cookies", or even "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy golfing on the moon." The possibilities are endless. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, I am arguing against the terms "like" and "enjoy". I want to change the verb to "watch". Unless of course you want to delete this category completely? Well I have to say that this cat is different to the "categories" you use as analogies. The cookies one we can't do, because the "liking food" is not a viable category. The same with with "pass gas", and certainly with "golfing on the moon"! What makes something viable? If a category is seen to inspire collaboration. "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy cookies" is not good for that. And since there are millions of categories expressing what Wikipedians watch, read, etc, then I cannot support the delete of a single, lone one. If you want to delete ALL the TV categories, then that is a different matter. Go right ahead with a WP:UCFD, and we will see what the community thinks. But I cannot support the deletion of one category when there are millions that are the same and aren't up for deletion. Deamon138 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to see all these "who like" categories deleted. And while "who watch" is somewhat better, I don't think Wikipedia should have categories with that naming convention either. I have watched hundreds of different TV shows, even if only for a few seconds while flipping through channels, so if we want to get technical I could probably add myself to a ton of categories if we renamed these to "who watch". "Interested in" is probably a better standard, assuming we can come to a consensus that such categories wouldn't be too narrow to facilitate collaboration. As for this lone example though, I am hesitant to say delete unless the others are nominated as well, as to prevent a double standard. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


September 6

Category:WikiProject Nintendo members

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Nintendo members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now orphaned memberlist from a now-defunct WikiProject that has turned into a task force. The task force uses its separate page to keep track of its members. MuZemike (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

September 5

Category:Users who are Vael Victus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Users who are Vael Victus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At first glance, this would appear to be a single-page category. However, my recent communications with Vael Victus suggest that the intention is that there will be a group of Wikipedians associated with the name. Either way, this doesn't seem an appropriate use of Wikipedia. It's unclear who or what Vael Victus is and what the criteria for joining would be. I'm not sure how to address this except via Cfd-user. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


September 1

Category:Wikipedians in east London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians in east London to Category:Wikipedians in East London, England per East London, England. - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in southeast London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London (which I find funny, as it was just speedily renamed the other way 'round in February, but whatever). Kbdank71 12:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in southeast London

South East London is a disambiguation page, indicating that it's merely the "eastern part of South London". And until the category introduction was changed by an editor in response to the discussion below, it showed "southeast London" as a pipe trick to Plumstead.[1] - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London. This is a bit more tricky. I don't think that every "Wikipedians in..." category has to map exactly to an existing detailed article about a place (as opposed to a disambiguation like the one you point out). What's wrong with slightly fuzzy classification? "South East London" is a very fuzzy classification, but a true one - you'd use it to describe a big crescent-shaped swathe of the city from Thamesmead in the east to Penge down south, or thereabouts, and extending to Deptford, Greenwich and Blackheath at its northern extent (the south side of the Thames). It's also distinct in London minds from Croydon, which would be why someone created Category:Wikipedians in Croydon - so you couldn't just roll it and that into one big "Wikipedians in South London", that wouldn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if a Category:Wikipedians in South West London appeared eventually, as well, for people in Richmond upon Thames, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 01:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians in South London - at the moment, there are only two users in the category, so there's nothing wrong with broadening the category's scope. Alternatively, upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in London. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complicated, but map here. SE London is quite easily sorted by postcode. South London is a "potential" misnomer, since many people associate South London with "sarf of the river mate", whilst a number of SW postcodes are "norf the river John". I'm also unclear as to the nominator's rationale for deletion. As I read it there is no rationale, so I must be missing something. Hiding T 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale is that "South East London" is not a well-defined location. South East London is a disambiguation page, and has several definitions that do not all agree. This category was also nominate about a month ago, which didn't come to anything. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I was there. And like I just said, South East London is a well-defined location; see the map provided. That Wikipedia doesn't define something doesn't make it ill-defined, it just points to the flaws in Wikipedia. Maybe someone can explain the difference between the two definitions offered on the dab page. We have an article on South London, but that points out how badly that is defined too, with the river used as the boundary except where it isn't. South East London is far easier to delineate. You either have an SE postcode or you don't. And I really am interested in the rationale for deleting this. Because I don't get it. What's the fear? Hiding T 10:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the SE postcode area and the eastern part of South London coterminous? I think jc37 wants to avoid grey areas in categorization. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not coterminous, as reference to the article on South London should make clear. What grey areas are looking to be avoided? Because however you let people in London categorise themselves, there will be grey areas. The biggest one will be in proving they are where they say they are. For me, this is a null debate; there's no reason to delete. The utility of these categories tends to be that they allow us to find topic specific experts and people who may be able to get photographs. Now at what point are you going to start your search at this detailed level? And why aren't the people who know where they live the best people to set up the categories? Either delete all Wikipedians by location, accept there will be grey areas or agree on a standard schemata. East, South, West and North are just as flawed as SE, SW and so on, because they have great big grey areas. As I said in the previous debate, if you want a proper set up you have to do it by borough; they are legal, political boundaries beyond dispute. You can sub-categorise the boroughs by location if desired. But given the pitiful number of people categorised in this structure, it should just be left alone. There's no reason to enforce change except for changes sake, and that's wrong. Especially when you have someone who doesn't understand what is going on trying to tell people who do understand what is going on the right way of doing things. I would abstain from telling people in New York how to categorise themselves. I apologise if I am going overboard a little, but I'm having to make up rationales here because there isn't one presented. Show the harm. Hiding T 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to grey areas; I only suggested that jc37 might be. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I thought it was self-evident. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). No article, and as Hiding states, the name may be "complicated", which means in this case, the inclusion criteria may be as well. Obfuscation? Confusion? Not something that would seem to be appropriate for categories. - jc37 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, because I must seriously be misunderstanding you. Are you asserting that, because we do not have an article on South East London it means it therefore doesn't exist, or that it is hard to define? There is no obfuscation nor confusion here. There is only the fact that real life doesn't come easily boxed. I think maybe there is a short story in here somewhere, whereby things disappear from existence based on the existence or lack thereof of a Wikipedia article about them. We're sorry South East London, you have to be demolished, for Wikipedia has no article on you, only a disambig notice pointing to two separate articles on the same topic. I think there are a couple of flaws in this argument. For starters, in what way does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) apply? What is ambiguous about this name? What else does it conflict with, other than itself? We're supposed to be precise when needed. Show why it is needed. Show the confusion. What are you confused about? You don't know which Wikipedians are in SE London? Tough, you never will, because they could be lying. You don't know where in SE London they are? If you need to know, ask them. You don't know what part of London SE London applies to? So why are you here? If we're going to have Wikipedians in categories, the best people to decide what place they are in are the people there. Until consensus works out what these categories are for, and then works out whether this category is fit for that purpose, there's no harm here. There's no great principles involved here, it's just one person's opinion over another. South East London is real. I know, I've been there. I have a good guess where these people live, it's in a part of London that is in the South East corner. Heck, I don't cause trouble in Category:Wikipedians in Latin America. Why should I? If I need a Wikipedian with expertise on London, I go to Wikipedians in London. If it turns out, through that local knowledge, that I need people expert to SE London, I go there. This issue is starting from a false premise; that I will be able to identify exactly what type of expert I need to deal with my problem. That's a distorted viewpoint that doesn't equate to reality. There are many systems for finding help on Wikipedia. This category may be of use to some when looking for help; it therefore seems to be bad form to mess about with it based on a separate form of thinking. Show the harm. There is no confusion and there is no obfuscation that will not exist with any other structure. You know what the best thing to do here would be? A grand plan. Do we have one yet? Have we decided only to categorise at this level of urban population and no lower? Have we agreed the best way to categorise Wikipedians is by political subdivisions, and if so which? Have we had that central discussion, or written it up anywhere? Let's not do things by staging post, let's do it in the backwaters, let's do it on a grand scale, with the chance for all to be heard and with a proper consensus which matters. I guess at the minute I'm leaning towards Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London. If the issue is that there isn't an article on SE London, someone would be better placed starting it than deleting this category. Unless there is a reason Wikipedia should not have an article on SE London. Which I would suggest breaches every policy we have. The thing I find hilarious is that people are suggesting we rename this as Category:Wikipedians in South London. That shows a complete lack of understanding, since South London is far harder to define than SE London. Is it sarf of the river? Honestly, the best bet is to invite all London Wikipedians to a discussion to hammer out the best way to sub-divide. Personally, I think that is by London borough. But that needs to be a centralised discussion, not a ucfd, because you won't get the input you desire or need; whatever the outcome here it will be a very local consensus. (pun intended) Hiding T 10:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians in South London or upmerge per Black Falcon. Do not rename to "South East London", as that is a disambiguation page, not an article. VegaDark (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If not deleted, I support the proposal by BF and VD, above (leaning toward upmerge). - jc37 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London Do not convert to a South London category. Exact location identities in London are traditionally vague due to the numerous different boundaries, but there is a strong South East London identity - the likes of Bexley, Greenwich and Orpington have a very different identity from those of Sutton, Kingston and Richmond and the rest of South West London. Both entries on the disambiguation page are basically referring to the same concept under different boundaries, not different places. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians in South East London - confused why the discussion above seems to think that south east london isn't clearly defined. The south london article doesn't say so. It's true that in south west london, the situation is different, given the SW postcodes north of the river, but this isn't, to my knowledge, the case in the south east. The existence of the disambig page appears to be the problem - it's that that ought to be deleted. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/September_2008&oldid=239636228"