Category talk:Wikipedians

Add topic
Active discussions


Hi. Would someone please respond to the objections to your cat project? Maurreen (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


This page has gone all foobar, no sub categories, no lisiting of users.--Pfafrich 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


I would love to know what the broad demographics are of the wiki community Steers82 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I have added one of our newest categoriesEdit

Some of the categorisations of Wikipedians, with all due respect, may seem silly or even narcissistic, and I think it wise to ask what purpose categorisation serves. I can see a number of reasons for categorisation of our userpages, and one of the most important is, surely, that people can check the sources that a particular Wikipedian is likely to have used. It is for this reason that I have added a category named below. Category: Wikipedians by access to sources and references

If you click on this, you will see several categories which, to me, would serve to support the credibility of an individual Wikipedian. In my view, the more Wikipedians who can put themselves in the subcategories listed there, the better! ACEO 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Scuba divingEdit

I'd like to add scuba as a category. Can I / should I do this? raining_girl 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Deletion debate about user categories by statusEdit

A recent deletion review over the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by active status, Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active and Category:Wikipedians who are partially active suggested that more discussion was needed about the potential utility of such categories. That discussion is taking place now at this link. All opinions are welcome. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories related to wikibreak and / or sabatical yearEdit

Dear friends,

It happens that wikimedians make a longer wikibreak and / or eaven a sabatical year. Please let me know if you plan such subcategories. It should be possible to add "estimated" or "past" timeintervals. It makes sense to have them also at commons:category:user. Best regards ·‎Gangleri·T·m: Th·T·email me·‎ 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All "Wikipedians by activity status" categories have been deleted over the past 6-12 months... While it is useful to know the activity status of individual editors, there is no real reason to browse through a category to specifically seek out inactive editors. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Can a podcasting category be created? --Mdieke (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oldest WikipediansEdit

How about putting up a List of oldest Wikipedian editors?-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

lol funny. - jc37 06:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for WikipediaEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recently it was brought to my attention that Od Mishehu (עוד מישהו) has been nominating multiple branches of this tree for deletion with the rationale of "I fail to see how these categories are relevant to encyclopedia-building." The categories nominated (some already deleted, others still up for discussion) that I'm aware of are:

The question here is, should these categories that are used to build the community, develop WikiProjects, develop & implement software (like WP:HUGGLE or WP:SNUGGLE or WP:STiki) and WP:userscripts & WP:Gadgets (like WP:AFCH or WP:TWINKLE), and find experts on certain subjects (because certainly they know where reliable sources and peer reviewed journals on the topics in their fields can be found) be kept or deleted?


  • Keep These categories are maintenance categories used by various WP:WikiProjects that exist and potential new projects that are trying to find the best way to encourage new user participation, as it helps them see what is available for users and what demographics could be improved. Technical 13 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - They serve a purpose in community building and enabling users to identify others with similar interests for collaboration on articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Ahunt and Technical 13. Clearly useful for community building and collaboration. Let's not make this place even more dreadful for editors.--cyclopiaspeak! 12:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep (and/or restore). Useful to see what software users are using to edit, per Technical 13. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have a problem with discussing these en-mass... I would agree that most of these cats are useful (so I lean towards Keep)... but a few might not be. Some might be more useful if renamed... others might be more useful if merged. What I am trying to say is... the various CfD noms are flawed because they lump all these cats together. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tenativelly keep most of the ones the proposer lists, but discuss individually the ones that aren't used to find people to help improving the encyclopaedia. There is no encyclopaedic relevance whether one uses Windows or OSX and stuff like that, using or liking isn't the same as being knowledgable in the subject. The categories ought to help interested parties, quote, "find experts on certain subjects". The proposer lists quite a few useful areas but fails to mention the much less useful ones. What about everything else [1] -- from liking CSI and listening to pop music to using Opera and reading erotica. While I appreciate the community-building and I personally don't mind that these exist, I find the proposal biased to listing useful ones but neglecting to list all the (arguably) unuseful ones. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Hellknowz, I only listed the ones that have been deleted and nominated for deletion. The relevance of what operating system a user is using to the encyclopedia is that there are programs that have been written to improve the encyclopedia and support of these programs (whether it be a stand-alone program, web interface, or javascript gadget/userscript) has a legitimate use of knowing how many users use a certain OS. The other use case for such information as to who is using which OS is that when there is a bug that only affects user of uber OS foo, then the developers can quickly make a list of all users of their application and filter out all users not using uber OS foo to reduce mailings and patches for people that don't need them. I have personally used some of these categories to create a mailing list for WP:SN. Technical 13 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is valid reasoning and I don't object to any such categories, you know, hotcat, wikied, stiki, awb, etc. These do help find or contact people to improve the enc. But you also listed discussions to CfDs which have no relevance to on-Wiki tools right before saying "these categories" . It creates an impression that the RfC and every keep includes those too (although many probably do). I am just making clear which one's I am talking about. As I said, I'm personally not opposed to vast majority of these. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well Hell, I work on wikiproject templates, and I know on some occasions that in testing out a template, users at that project have wanted to find editors with all the different operating systems, different browsers, etc. This is exactly the kind of category that would have enabled us to find such editors if none had been active members of the project. So while they may just seem like fluff to you, they can actually be critically important to those of us who are "improving the encyclopedia" in a more technical way than just writing article content. I would argue that any "Wikipedians who" categories serve the purpose of enabling other editors to find people with certain expertise or ability, and that none of them should be deleted. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I admit that wasn't a good example and I'll strike that because my point isn't about specific examples. Besides, I said discuss and not delete the ones that aren't used for these purposes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that there are important uses to these categories. If other categories are pointless, then they should be eligible for CfD nomination. Andrew327 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, some categories are very trivial and does not make sense to have them, but this RFC includes all those categories, so I say keep. --Stryn (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. By and large, these are helpful and useful. To the extent that a few may be useless, I don't think we should bother with them unless they are demonstrably harmful to the encyclopedia. At the very least, the fact that some editors put themselves into the categories that others may consider useless shows that those editors who do use them like them enough to add themselves. If otherwise useless categories make editors happy, perhaps that happiness will inspire those editors in their work. bd2412 T 13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Technical 13. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - with the caveat that some might need pruning in places. I will say that Category:Wikipedians by location can be useful in finding editors who can take pictures, since if they live close to something, it's easier for them to do. Also, one of its bottom-level subcats has let me know of other users who live in the region I do, and camaraderie is important on Wikipedia. Chris857 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep generally I'm uncertain about the usefulness of the Windows one (and have a mostly-unrelated comment at its DR) and of some other branches of the tree, but this tree is generally quite useful. Wikipedia is not a social network, but some networking among Wikipedians can facilitate the project in a great number of ways. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Question This RfC seems to assume that the deletions are attempts to kill off the category and I'm curious as to whether that's actually the case. If it is, this RfC is relevant as a "let's shorten the process" approach; if not, well, category pruning always happens and the RfC isn't that relevant. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that categories are most useful when they do not include a large percentage of users (e.g. Windows users, males or females) and don't include too small of a percentage (e.g. noob picoBSD users or pre-op male to female transsexuals). In addition they should have better than hypothetical rational, and be likely to be added by relevant users. Bcharles (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Invaluable.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 04:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep the set, and in most case keep even if they don't necessarily seem that helpful. Identity categories, like user boxes, help Wikipedians find one another for support and shared interest. I'd lean towards keeping rather than deleting most of them. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep or restore if deleted. These categories are harmless and provide a way for users to express simple facts about themselves or the way they work with Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and snow-close this discussion. Discuss individual ones as needed. If Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia categories should be deleted en masse is created, the deletion discussion for it will be ... interesting.  :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: recently I was facing issue with WikipediaCleaner (I could not and still can not fin the exact download link), and here WikipediaCleaner might be very helpful. Similarly, users who have access to JSTOR, Highbeam etc might be helpful too. In WikiProject India, category by languages known and categories by states where Wikipedians live are regularly referred (see WT:INB discussions). In addition, these pages are required for community building. But, you might delete categories like Category:Wikipedians who wear shirts, Category:Wikipedians who have two hands type categories (I mean completely unnecessary categories, if there is any). But, the categories in question should not be deleted.
    Plus an alternative to inform others that you are using Firefox or Facebook or XYZ, is using userboxes. Userboxes sometimes attract more attention than categories. So, if I have to tell others that "12" is my favourite number, I'll use userbox, not category. --TitoDutta 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per the comments and restrictions of Bcharles. Anything under 2% of the population I could see a case for challenging on, however patently obvious categories like Category:Wikipedians from Pitcairn Islands doesn't share the same level of need for categorization as Category Wikipedians from Monaco Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Consider on a case by case basis There is no reason to think all these categories have the same issues, and no reason to treat them as a group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: these categories build community amongst editors. Some may seem inane but some are quite useful, so just keep. We really don't need just another thing to undo us grouping ourselves together. Fylbecatulous talk 19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per SNOW. The subcats are very informative and the parent category acts as their umbrella. — -dainomite   20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Overwhelmingly Keep -- Inasmuch as there could be said to be "tradition" on Wikipedia, these cats encompass tradition. There is no harm in applying the category and, in fact, there is a great deal of benefit in having more information than there is in less information. Damotclese (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - these categories are useful for Wikipedians connecting with each other and creating a better sense of community. Finding common ground between editors is absolutely crucial to our goals of building an encyclopedia in many obvious ways. LazyBastardGuy 01:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
However, I do agree with John Pack Lambert above - certain of such categories are pointless and don't do much to foster community feelings. The more general ones (e.g. who uses which operating system, for example) provide editors with the ability to understand each other better, others that are too specific aren't of much help. LazyBastardGuy 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • case by case - for obvious reasons. Are the keep !votes suggesting that any arbitrary child cat should be kept, irregardless? I'm not sure what this survey is asking. CFD is the proper venue for category discussions, and they can be case by case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I said "keep" with respect to the ones immediately listed; I see these particular entries as having great potential. However, others not listed may or may not have the same value or potential, and should therefore be decided on a case-by-case basis. LazyBastardGuy 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)≠
Keep - as a sometime proposer of a self referencing history inside wikipedia itself, two things - keep, and CFD is the last place to go, the usual suspects in that dark corner are focussed upon totally different aspects of category problems - definitely not what this category is about, also I disagree quite wholeheartedly with Lambert - I see every reason for considering as a group - case by case and CFD is a path this group should not have to have imposed upon it sats 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - I am both amazed and distressed that elimination of such categories is even being considered by some. We want to encourage and retain editors, but some people seem determined to eliminate all of the community-building and fun/silly aspects of Wikipedia. Remember the adage, "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." If is seen as a dull, boring (or mean-spirited) slog of academia pretending to be (or maybe it once was) a relevant social Web presence, then who is going to want to spend time here doing all the grunt work it takes to keep the site running. People aren't paid to do what they do. They do it for a variety of reasons, and personal relationships, curiosity about fellow Wikipedians, and a little bit of bling (i.e., userboxes that often tie in with these categories) are the only "social currency" that we "pay" to keep them coming back. It's not encyclopedic. It's humanity. The bots will keep things running without those categories, but people, specifically editors will run from here if much the non-encyclopedic stuff were to go away. —Willscrlt “Talk” ) 07:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • NOTICE ON SPECIFIC CFD. Regarding Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows, which is one of the categories mentioned above: After being deleted and going to a DRV, this category went back to CFD for a second time, and after a week or so I regarded the discussion as resulting a rough consensus of "delete". After some discussion and in light of the competing consensus apparent in this forum, I have thought it best to relist this discussion after placing a notice of relisting here. The relisted discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Technical 13. Jianhui67 Talk 08:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Highly important and also very helpful in finding other users. ///EuroCarGT 01:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jayadevp13 02:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussionEdit

  • Comment. This RFC is an abuse of process; it is a form of forum-shopping. It is not a general discussion about user categories, or even a discussion about some particular type or style of them. Instead it conflates several different CFDs in which very different arguments are being made, and seeks to create a new venue for some sort of super-vote. That serves no useful purpose other than to disrupt consensus-formation, and it would be much better to have simply posted a few links to the relevant CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    Reply It is perfectly acceptable to get a consensus of the broader community especially when the narrower forums fall in the "no consensus" category. Since the CFD in question closed with a 66% agreement and a general rule of thumb is that anything above 80% is a consensus, anything below 70% is not, and anything in between may go either way depending on the strength of the reasons given by the participants. They other two specific ones named above closed as unanimous keep. Technical 13 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    Reply. None of the CFDs were closed as "no consensus". One was relisted after a DRV, and is being discussed again at CFD. This RFC is a classic piece of forum-shopping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    Comment. I agree with BHG's assessment that this RFC is an abuse of process. It cherry-picks one particular user category (Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows) and two user category groups/trees (Wikipedians by gender, Wikipedians by profession) and asks the equivalent of whether the community thinks spouses should be beaten: "The question here is, should these categories that are [so obviously useful that only a fool would not recognize their value] be kept or deleted?"
    There is no general effort to delete Category:Wikipedians or its parts, and hundreds of previous discussions have established that some user categories are useful and others are not (a common-sense conclusion, I would think). Individual categories can, just like any other page, be nominated and considered on a case-by-case basis, and it is patently ridiculous to try to establish an exemption for a whole set of pages. If I nominated Empire State Building for deletion, the discussion would end with a "speedy keep" and a trout-slap, and that should be the end of it. It would be unreasonable to react to that nomination by asking the community whether articles on buildings in general should be kept or deleted. So, then, why are we doing the equivalent in this case? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    What has been failed to be taken into account here is that elevating the level of community participation is not forum shopping and the associated discussions linked above all met the requirements of an RfC which says that it should be publicized. Had I not soft redirected those CfD nominations to this RfC, then you would have a valid case. My final thought on this is that elevation of the level of a discussion to RfC is not forum shopping. Technical 13 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's not my intention to be accusatory, and I apologize if the tone of my comment suggested that. However, even if the intent was not forum-shop, starting this RfC ultimately has that effect because it is designed to address an issue that is invented or imagined. The fact of the matter is that there is no serious disagreement within the community about whether user categorization should take place. Countless discussions have established that it should.
    However, there can be and is disagreement and discussion about user categorization in particular circumstances (i.e., for particular categories), and it is forum-shopping to elevate these localized discussions to RfC when there is already an established process in place to handle them. Starting a discussion about user categorization in general in response to one or two inadequately planned and overwhelmingly opposed nominations is counterproductive and an overreaction. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If this was just forum-shopping it would be not so problematic. What is going on her is poisoning the discussion by confusing the issue. Whether we have wikipedians by gender, occupation and ethnicity, is not the same as whether we have the Microsoft windows user category. This is shown by the very different outcomes of CfD discussions. on the case of the ethnicity and occupation categories they have resulted in overwhelming votes to keep. Some editos have even expressed different views on the different issue. This combining of unlike things is very problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedians by length of activityEdit

It's kind of interesting to see lists of Wikipedians by article count or other factors, but I'd really love to see a list of the Top 1000 or Top 5000 Wikipedians by the length of time the Editor has been active on Wikipedia.
I know that I've seen a few user pages with Infoboxes that say an Editor has been active 8 or 9 years and one that had 10 years. But I came across an active Editor that joined in 2001! I think that 12 years of activity is notable and I was wondering if accounts had some numerical assignment and a list could be made of the earliest accounts on Wikipedia. Is there a program or bot that can put this together? Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just discovered these out-of-date pages, like Wikipedians in order of arrival, 2001, but it was created by people adding their names on to the list. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Special:ListUsers has an option to sort by date of account creation. It's not perfect, but I think it might provide most of the information you're seeking. If you're looking for more information, you could try also asking at WP:BOTREQ, WP:VPT, or Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)