User talk:Hyacinth/User categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Proposal

[edit] Proposal

There have been numerous disputes with regards to user categories (WP:UCFD) but there is no policy or guideline aside from Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not there is a complete consensus that user categories must be capable of facilitating collaboration. It is contentious as to whether there are user categories which are inherently collaborative or productive and also as to whether user categories must state their collaborative intent (for example, "Category:Users interested in collaborating on collaboration").

[edit] Proposal:Collaborative requirement

It is proposed that user categories must be capable of and intended for assisting with collaboration on Wikipedia irregardless of whether the category title must say so.

This guideline has been argued enough it deserves its own vote, irregardless of other requirements.

Support. Hyacinth (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, sorta. Per DuncanHill's comment below, user categories are inherently constructive. This is not to say that destructive user categories are impossible. I support the the removal of destructive categories, but I also hold that categories should be presumed acceptable in the absence of argument to the contrary.
My opinion here derives largely from the behavior I have seen in WP:UCFD. Frequently, categories are nominated for deletion with nothing more detailed than "not useful for collaboration" as a nomination rationale. This could be a great mental guideline when proposing deletion. It would help nominators answer the question, "How is this category destructive?" as long as the the resulting nomination does not beg the question.
Simply put, there is no need to explicitly require that categories be useful for collaboration: they are. I support the idea that user categories are better when they are more useful for collaboration, but I oppose the explicit collaboration requirement because it is unnecessary and because the current assumption of that requirement encourages editors to make bad decisions. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Barring disruptive, polemic, or otherwise, there is no point to policing user categories. UCFD currently amounts to a dogpile of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Proposal A: Collaborative statement requirement

It is proposed then, that in order for the creation and deletion of user categories to happen in an orderly, speedy, and consistent fashion [with WP:NPOV, nondiscrimination, and with the ban on social networking found at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] that ALL user categories state their collaborative intent as with "Category:Wikipedians by interest".

It has been argued that is both a codification of the current practice and the most practical way to ensure collaboration.

Support. Hyacinth (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Usercats (other than "attack" cats) are inherently collaborative. Self-identification is an important part of community-building, and if Wikipedia is to function as a community, then editors need to be able to build the relationships which underpin any community. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Red herring. Why are user categories necessary in order to build those relationships? I've had no problem integrating myself into the community, and I didn't use user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Response - What works for one editor won't necessarily work for all editors. Flexibility allows differing styles and methods of collaboration to develop, allowing the broadest possible range of editors to participate fully. DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Self-identification must be allowed as part of community-building. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Red herring. There are many ways to self-identify other than user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Mostly support - As a general rule I agree with this, but I think there could be exceptions for certain types of categories (such as the location categories below). For instance, the alma mater categories have had consensus to be kept (not to mention language categories), and there may be some other instances of user categories like this being useful for the project. As for the "self identification" comments above, that does not need to be accomplished through user categories. Self identification is fully allowed and encouraged in the user space. User categories should exist for the purpose of finding others, not for the purpose of self identification. You don't need a category to self-identify. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on "you don't need a category to self-identify", which is a true statement. However, these categories serve the dual purpose of self-identification and community-building. It does me no good to self-identify as a member of BBBB if there's no way for other members to find that information. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me clarify: You are saying that some user categories, while they may not be directly encyclopedic, indirectly help the encylopedia by fostering community building? I might be able to see this for some categories, but I still think this should be the exception rather than the rule. I think there needs to be clear guidelines on what such categories would be acceptable, as clearly there are some that would neither be encyclopedic nor foster community building. Also "There's no way for other members to find that information" isn't quite accurate - For templates such as userboxes, one can use the "what links here" function to find others using the same template, essentially functioning as a category. VegaDark (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Per DuncanHill and SatyrTN. If we're expected to work in this environment -- to produce a human-usable, human-sensitive encyclopedia, then we have to be humans. WP is not a sweatshop that expects us to check our humanity at the door and stick to doing our job. We're not robots: machines for editing. We're people -- people with feelings, with a need for community. William P. Coleman (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Red herring. User categories != community. It is perfectly possible to build community without using these categories; in fact, I've never seen one instance of a user category used for community building. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I've never seen it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I believe undue policing of users risks draining volunteer goodwill and is bad for the project. In general, our rules should only forbid things on user space if there's an identified problem for the project. This proposal does the reverse, disallowing unless there's an identified benefit. Feels WP:CREEPy and WP:BURO-like. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"In general, our rules should only forbid things on user space if there's an identified problem for the project" - Agreed. However, user categories are in the category space, not the user space. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Which space do user categories categorise? Hiding T 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the example works well. Regular categories categorise pages in the article mainspace, but they still constitute a distinct namespace. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So you believe we standardise by a technical distinction rather than by usage? Hiding T 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not merely a technical distinction, but a fundamental difference in function. The function of user pages is to allow users to provide information about themselves; the function of categories is to group related pages. So, while we can and should differentiate between regular categories and user categories, we should not ignore the distinction between categories and user pages. They are different creatures and should be judged by different standards, just as articles and article categories are judged by different standards. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So the community cannot choose to do something other than what the technical functions dictate. We cannot take into account the difference between categorising a user page, a template, an image or categorising an article? Isn't function defined as much by use as by technicality? Hiding T 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So the community cannot choose to do something other than what the technical functions dictate. It is not a matter of limitations imposed by technical functions, but rather an inherent purpose defined by the technical functions. The issue at hand is the identification of the natural purpose of categories: to group together related pages. One can use a dictionary as a coaster, and one can write policies and guidelines in the category namespace (i.e. "something other than what the technical functions" would suggest), but that doesn't mean that one should.
We cannot take into account the difference between categorising a user page, a template, an image or categorising an article? Of course we can, should, and do. (I did, after all, mention "regular" (i.e. article) and "user" categories as being distinct types of categories.) However, what you seem to be ignoring is that ultimately they are still categories, whose inherent function is to group together related pages. Yes, they group together different types of pages and thus should be held to different standards, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that, at the end of the day, their purpose is still to group together related pages. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I second SatyrTN and Shirahadasha's opinions.AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per Shirahadasha. More fussy rules + more people monitoring fussy rules + more arguments over the finer points of fussy rules = less encyclopedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - as per Gandalf61 and others. This is too bureaucratic and a waste of time to argue about how people want to categorize themselves. Let folks put themselves in categories as long as there is no obvious harm, and get back to writing an encyclopedia. Aleta (Sing) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Aleta who manages to say in two sentences what I have spent paragraphs trying to explain to people. The encyclopedia is simply bigger than this issue. Hiding T 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - While I think I understand the substance of the proposal, I'm shying away due to remembering the previous userbox debates which had concerns about too much "legalese". For one thing, such guidelines exist and have existed for some time, and have been supported by several CFD/UCFD/DRV discussion results. (Noting, of course, that this is discussing user categories, not userboxes (as apparently is misunderstood by several above). Under current practice, I support userpage notices (including those of identification). I merely note that the use of category-space is an inappropriate way to do so.) - jc37 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I'm tired of people who want this to be a robotic place to exist trying to ditch all the community-building aspects of this site. Boo! --David Shankbone 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that Boo! [1] AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ancient Booer ... nice. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I like the clarity of the statement (there's no way to misinterpret a "Boo!"), it is a straw man. No one wants to create a robotic environment (with the possible exception of these guys) that lacks any sense of community or opportunity for community-building. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. While I agree with the principle that user categories should serve some purpose other than being bottom-of-the-page notices (i.e. they should facilitate collaboration), I do not believe that the bureaucracy involved with requiring explicit statements of collaborative usefulness is needed or justified. In my opinion, current (relevant) policies, guidelines and processes suffice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I disagree with this proposal for the reasons given by Shirahadasha and Aleta. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose especially the policing and creepy parts mentioned earlier. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Proposal B: Location

It is proposed that demographic categories of locations as with "Category:Wikipedians from X" be allowed with these categories following the guidelines for categorization, notability, and location.

It has been argued that this demographic categorization does not resemble a social networking tool and that it inherently assists with collaboration irregardless of stated intent. This may be seen as an exception to WP:What Wikipedia is not's ban on social networking or as inherently and self-apparently collaborative.

Support. Hyacinth (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. In my personal opinion, all demographic categories should themselves be notable. I.E., a list of users who live in Guguletu should be deleted.
Support having such categories, but they should be limited to US state/province/uk county level, and cities over (arbitary figure - say 2 million). I don't understand the proposal's "following the guidelines for categorization, notability, and location." - what does that mean here? Nor do I entirely understand the unsigned comment above. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Zenwhat

[edit] Comment by Allstarecho

Maybe I'm just not reading the proposal right but there should be codification of naming policy. "LGBT Wikipedians" isn't the same thing as "Wikipedians interest in LGBT issues". One denotes identification, the other denotes collaboration. So what exactly are you proposing here? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are one of the few people who has continued in discussions in support of identity categories. Given that they have been opposed, what justification may we provide for them? Hyacinth (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In support of identity categories? See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by religion and related. That's not support of identity categories by any means. Again, what exactly are you proposing here via this proposal??? Are you suggesting delete all "Whatever Wikipedians" cats? Renaming them? What? Your statement above isn't clear. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am confused, as well. Perhaps flesh it out some more? superluser_tc 2008 February 05, 04:27 (UTC)

Since you support them you should propose some guideline to justify identity categories. Preferably this would cite other policy, much as "proposal A" should cite WP:NOT, and explain rather than declare the categories' appropriateness. Hyacinth (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:Hyacinth

This proposal is fairly weak as it stands but may be useful for building consensus. Location categories seem justifiable on the grounds of collaboration (by location and interest) and/or that basic demographic categories are inherently justifiable. How do we want the guideline to address this issue? Hyacinth (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the intent of your proposal, I think it would be misguided to force all user categories to start as "Wikipedians interested in ...". Some categories provide information about an interest (Category:Wikipedians by interest), some provide information about potentially-useful skills and knowledge (Category:Wikipedians by profession, Category:Wikipedians by skill), and some provide information about certain abilities (Category:Wikipedians by language, Category:Wikipedians by location). The collaborative merit of distinct sets of categories is best judged on a case-by-case basis, I think. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholly support/agree with Black Falcon's comments directly above. In addition, typically, naming conventions of Wikipedian categories is typically found by looking at the various category names within a Parent category. The reason for this is to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. And this also allows for future group nominations for a change of such convention. Also, renaming a category can lead to miscategorising Wikipedians. (Such as the previously mentioned "zodiac cats".) And we should strive to avoid that. Deletion and (re-)creation under the new name is much preferrable to retasking an existing grouping to a new name. - jc37 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal C: Skill

It is proposed that self-populated categories under "Category:Wikipedian by skill" be allowed with these categories following other guidelines for categorization and notability.

Everyone seems okay with "Category:Wikipedians by skill".

Hyacinth (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement is too general. Some "by skill" categories can facilitate collaboration (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions) and others cannot (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube (see discussion). As above, I think a case-by-case approach and evaluation is more appropriate. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Rephrase what I wrote to justify "Category:Wikipedians by skill." Hyacinth (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to justify the entire category tree, but rather to justify certain types of categories based on their functionality. For instance: "categories that group users by ability to improve the encyclopedia". This would include a number of subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by skill, would exclude a few others, and would also extend to categories that are not necessarily related to a specific skill. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal D: Skill

It is proposed that "Category:Wikipedians by skill" be allowed.