-
Category:Queer Wikipedians (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
The last decision on this category was made over 15 years ago. In that time, there has been consensus to bring back
Category:Asexual Wikipedians,
Category:Pansexual Wikipedians,
Category:Bisexual Wikipedians,
Category:Gay Wikipedians,
Category:Lesbian Wikipedians,
Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians, and (spiritually)
Category:LGBT Wikipedians. The original deletion decision is questionable as well, as the admin closed the thread based on their subjective view of the "strength of arguments", despite there clearly being no consensus.
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 06:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Allow recreation That AFD close was dubious, and could be a no consensus, but after all this time probably not worth overturning. My opinion is that users should be able to categorise themselves, so reasoning here is just opinion. Categories for users are not just about collaboration.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Procedural close and allow recreation - I see no point in re-litigating a 2007 decision, BOLDly recreate it and see if there's any objection.
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 23:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- It's been salted since 2008 (and the protecting admin is not someone I recognize as one of the user category police of old, oddly enough).
* Pppery *
it has begun... 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- All of the above violate
WP:USERCATNO in at least one way. If the LOCALCONSENSUSes in such discussion are really a global consensus that USERCATNO is out of step with the will of the community, then USERCATNO should be altered appropriately by RfC. Until there's an appropriate discussion, then G4 appears to apply.
Jclemens (
talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- What part of USERCATNO do these categories violate?
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I'm against all user categories, but I don't see USERCATNO applying here.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 19:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- While the individual criteria are not numbered, criteria 6-8 of the 9 enumerated would be the ones at issue.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- It seems to me like OC/U intentionally avoids taking a stance on the above categories. Being LGBT isn't a like, an advocacy of a position, or inherently provocative. I agree with the editor below who said that an RfC is needed to amend OC/U and clarify whether or not identity-based categories are allowed. For the time being, they're not discouraged by any policy and consensus seems to be in favor of them.
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I honestly have no idea how you're applying any of those criteria to the category at hand.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Allow Recreation - I personally think that these user categories and most user categories are undesirable, but policy allows them, and a deletion debate 16 years ago should not be decisive because
consensus can change.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Gender- and sexuality-based user categories and userboxes are among the most popular with Wikipedians. It makes no sense for us to try to second-guess the intent of whoever penned
WP:USERCATNO item #6 (
any grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building ) to figure out whether it applies to things that aren't a preference, but are still in most cases irrelevant to encyclopedia-building. This issue is important and widespread enough to be properly handled via an RfC to amend
WP:USERCATYES and
WP:USERCATNO, and spell out whether categories such as
Category:Queer Wikipedians are welcome here or not. I can see valid arguments for both sides, but CfD or DRV is not the place to debate the issue.
Owen×
☎ 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Allow re-creation. Who are these shadowy userspace category police anyway, and how are they helping us write an encyclopaedia? Can we refocus them on something more productive?—
S Marshall
T/
C 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The CfD regulars of old.
- What is the role of categories? To categorise? To navigate? To help organise maintenance? Pageviews indicate that no one uses them. (Like Portals).
- A huge amount of maintenance goes into categories, from a very few volunteers. Non category wonks fiddling with categories adds to the maintenance load, and user categories encourage editors to play with categories, and so the category wonks merged usercategories into all categories and have enforced extremely esoteric and restrictive usage criteria. For trails to stories and evidence of attempted resistance, see
Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Yup, personally I'm a member of
Category:Wikipedians who think the userspace category police could probably be doing something better with their time. This disruptive pointy gatekeeping rubbish has been going on at CfD since forever. Remember
Wikipedians who say CfD is broken from 2009?—
S Marshall
T/
C 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Yes. After being told I need to participate at CfD, I put in a few years of at least reading the nomination of every CfD. I feel I learned a lot about categories and category policy. I think the category system is more work than it’s worth, that it burns more users than it helps, that no reader uses it, and that it (like Portalspace) should be deleted, barring some creative large scale renovation.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- What's the point? Why do we need three separate categories for "LGBT", "Non-binary", and "Queer"? Regardless begrudgingly allow recreation since I can't think of any actual refutation to the nominator's argument, although I would definitely advocate for a merge or deletion at CfD.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- People identify differently, I don't see that as being the reason to begrudge anything.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 04:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Some of us grew up during a time when the term in question was clearly and only a slur, and are unimpressed with the efforts of some to rehabilitate it as empowering. Thus, divisive and clearly USERCATNO, no matter how noble the intentions of those desiring to so self-describe.
Jclemens (
talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang in 1937 suggests it had been a claimed term for self identification since 1914.
- The claims that usercategories can be divisive, I have always found very weak.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- We were once told (and I see you were also involved slightly,
SmokeyJoe) that to categorise yourself under
Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians or any of 155 other categories was to be "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive".
[1]
Thincat (
talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- That misrepresents the linked nomination. It claims that the creation of
Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians and other categories like it was the divisive action, not the decision of any one user to add themselves to those categories once they existed. Adding oneself to a category is not an endorsement of its existence, and in fact my userpage is in at least one category that I would probably support deletion of if it were nominated at CfD.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with Thincat. The Usercat police were pushing logically contorted arguments that were in that discussion properly ridiculed.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 20:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
reply
|