Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/March 2009

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | User‎ | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2009)
< February 2009 April 2009 >

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.

March 29 edit

Category:Wikipedia administrators edit

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: Keep as a parent cat. No consensus on whether this cat should be populated though. Good arguments both for and against. The "counting" of admins through this category seems to have been clearly shown as inaccurate (due to transclusion, etc.), and moot, since there is another (more accurate) way to so it. However, several claimed that this is useful for navigation. And though that may be a somewhat weaker argument due to the existence of Special:ListAdmins, that combined with the wish to keep due to being a parent cat, balances against the opposing arguments, and leads to this having no consensus in this discussion, and further, no consensus to overturn the previous discussion. - jc37 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to and inferior in quality to Special:ListAdmins -- IRP ☎ 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I often look at user categories to see if somebody has listed themselves as an admin. Its a quicker way to discover if they are (though it will not prove somebody isn't). Also, anything that helps newcomers find admins is a very good thing. Newcomers have no idea how to find the special page. On the category page we should add notes that the list may be incomplete, and that a full list can be found at the special page identified by the nominator. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jehochman, and add link to Special:ListAdmins (of which I was not aware). Occuli (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shouldn't this debate be in WP:UCFD?? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move debate per Bhg. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I moved this discussion from CFD to UCFD, as it is a user category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "New users don't know" is not a valid excuse for people who do know to do silly things. New users should be educated and not patronised. If you don't expect people to know about Special:ListUsers, why expect them to know about this category? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not inferior to Special:ListAdmins. Serves, amongst other things, as a parent to Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination and its sub categories. Regards SoWhy 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that can be a top level category. No parent category needed. -- IRP ☎ 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would not make a good top level category because it would then be Category:Wikipedia functionaries => Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination, an illogical jump. I see no harm in having this category in the middle. Also, it serves as a useful newbie way of telling whether someone is an admin, especially for those admins who do not use {{administrator}} or an userbox but still list themselves in the category. That way a newbie, who certainly does not know about Special:ListAdmins might determine the adminship of another user easily. I see no reason to remove such a good way to identify users if there is no benefit whatsoever to gain from it. The problem with this nomination is that "redundant" is not avery good arguments to delete something unless one can specify the gain that deletion might bring or the harm that keeping it will. Regards SoWhy 06:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is not redundant. It is an anchor for sub categories. Also, you can't use WP:Magic words like {{PAGESINCATEGORY:categoryname}} on Special:ListAdmins. {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia administrators}}:"691" vs {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Special:ListAdmins}}:"0". Chillum 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a magic word: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which does not need this category in order to function. -- IRP ☎ 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia administrators}}:"691" - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}:"859". Hmmm Different numbers. I was not aware of {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}, very interesting. Regardless my point about sub-categories still holds. Chillum 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: regarding the subcategory concern, see my reply to SoWhy. -- IRP ☎ 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the only reasons given for deletion are "inferior" and "redundant", I don't find the fact that another category could be the parent to be persuasive. Chillum 04:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Has anything changed since the last time this was nominated? Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedia_administrators --Kbdank71 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The points that have been raised in this UCFD are new points that were not mentioned in the previous one. bibliomaniac15 03:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point that there are other ways to find this information? That was brought up then. --Kbdank71 03:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}. I think that now would be a good time, though, to analyze the true value of the points that have been brought up in both UCFDs. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gotcha. But that just gives you a number, no? --Kbdank71 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah. Either you can check the category or the number to find out how many admins there are. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reasons why it is inferior in quality is because it is not as accurate and it does not display when the accounts were created as Special:ListAdmins does. {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia administrators}} displayed the number 1,712 at the time this comment was posted. However, {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} displayed the number 1,634 at the time this comment was posted. Because {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} displays a lower number than {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia administrators}}, I would assume that 78 non-sysops have incorrectly listed themselves as administrators (1,712-1,634=78). It is not possible for non-sysops to be listed at Special:ListAdmins. -- IRP ☎ 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'd say you assume incorrectly. If an admin has a "userboxes" subpage for example, he will be listed both for that page and for his userpage where it's transcluded. SoWhy 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That still makes the number inaccurate though. -- IRP ☎ 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an alternative to deleting this category, it can be emptied then redirected to Special:ListAdmins. -- IRP ☎ 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The more I think about this the more I find it useful. If all you want is a number of admins, you can use NUMBEROFADMINS (if you know about it). If you want a list, you can use Special:ListAdmins. But neither of those methods will tell me a particular editor is an admin by looking at their user page. Not foolproof, but it works. --Kbdank71 18:58, 1 April 2009 (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.


March 8 edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in Hesse edit

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 who read Hesse.--Aervanath (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Hesse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improper naming convention, needs to be changed to match convention in Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author. Current title implies a "Wikipedians by individual" category, which have unanimous precedent to delete if that was the intent. VegaDark (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (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:Wikipedian Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras Supporter Page edit

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:Wikipedian Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras fans.--Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras Supporter Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improper naming convention, needs to be renamed to match convention at Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. VegaDark (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (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.

March 6 edit

Category:Blocked historical users edit

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: prune to remove pages which don't fit the criteria. No consensus to rename.--Aervanath (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blocked historical users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I did a bit of random clicking and only found one page User talk:Ldingley that met the criteria for inclusion in this category. None of the others had any content other than the block notice (e.g. User:A dormant volcano). Needs either a re-think or some pruning (possibly bot-assisted?). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if this category is necessary at all, but this should at minimum get some sort of rename to better match current user category naming conventions. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked? VegaDark (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of random clicking, I would suggest all users so-labelled are checked (there are between 200 and 400 of them). The key here is "discussion on the user talk pages of productive article edits before the account was blocked". The point is that if a user engaged in productive edits and talk page discussion before the behaviour that caused them to be banned, then some record of that should remain. Especially if they were major contributors to a set of articles. If there is any bot activity, it should be based on an analysis of the contributions history. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User talk:Everyme, User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo, User talk:Anoshirawan, User talk:Samiharris and User talk:Martinphi are examples of genuinely historical blocked users with an appreciable contributions history and talk page history that should be retained. Many of the others are, however, throwaway sock accounts and should be deleted. See discussion here. It does seem that people have been misunderstanding this category, so a rename to something like "Banned users with talk page history" or something. Basically, anything that wasn't a throwaway account, and was around for a while and was "good" (relatively speaking) before being banned, should be kept. Also, any cases where the ban might possibly be overturned or rescinded later, should be kept. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Strike-out correction made. 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way it is titled now, one would expect to find Willy and Grawp in it, possibly Betacommand as well, as indef-blocked users who are somehow more notable than the average two-bit vandal. Firestorm Talk 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No vandals, but essentially non-vandal community-banned users shouldn't have their talk pages deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a bot request here. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as-is until an alternative is created and implemented. This category is mostly populated by templates; {{Indefblockeduser}} currently only has 2 options: Put the page in CAT:TEMP where it will eventually be deleted, or this category. Personally I think it would make far more sense to just rename the category and expand the usage to what its currently being used for rather than create a whole new one. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask what would be the point of keeping a user page that doesn't fall under the category's criteria, nor has anything to do with sock-puppetry? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree things like User:A dormant volcano should not be in the category, and I've no idea why someone would think it should be. If its not needed for anything, then it can be deleted. But at least based on the bot request, the proposal here is to remove even sockpuppet pages. Mr.Z-man 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression that userpages in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of x don't get deleted. They also shouldn't be in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, hence the removal of {{indefblock}} from sockpuppets with no talk history. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 85 users who have no talk page, and no content history on their user page. The list is here. There are probably others with an existing talk page, but no content history. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (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/March_2009&oldid=1138412797"