This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
From what I can tell almost every single category nominated by Patricknoddy today was created by himself from a redlinked category he found that was populated. Someone needs to explain to him that this is not what should be done, and also speedy close all the nominations of categories he created due to original author request. I'll be busy for a while but I will help when I am done. VegaDark 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The UCFD process is needed to justify depopulating a user category (except for categories solely populated by a userbox, a process is necessary to justify editing other users' user pages), so these categories should have been nominated. A nomination _requires_ adding a template. This was absolutely the right course of action and I don't see what else you think he should have done. -- Random832 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be needed to justify depopulating a redlinked category. I say just remove redlinked categories from all user pages and templates. If a UCFD were necessary in each case, that would require many, many more times the number of categories that he already created and nominated. It also sounds like a huge loophole that could be taken advantage of: If someone wanted to, they could add themselves to hundreds of redlinked categories and we would need to create each and then go through a 7 day UCFD for every one if what you say is true, which would develop a huge backlog and a lot of unnecessary work. VegaDark 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Would this process be faster/preferred for trivial renaming such as alma mater: Edit the userbox to use the correctly named category, create it, and then WP:CSD#C1 the old empty cat after 4 days. – Pomte 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've realized we've had some deletions, but they never took place. We need a bot or something like that to keep up with the deletions, mergers, etc. - Patricknoddy TALK (reply here)| HISTORY 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through quite a few userboxes adjusting categories to match current consensus (most recently, the native language programming language cats). I've found that if the userbox has a double redirect (as due to userfication, for example), the cats take a LONG time to depopulate, even though the userpages show the new, updated category. Obviously we should avoid deleting a category before depopulating it, however, I've found that if I go through every remaining member of the category, and find that each's category has changed, but this just hasn't been reflected (yet) in the category listing, then it's safe to delete, with the presumption that the servers will eventually catch up, and depopulate the category. Just thought I would mention this for anyone else who may have had similar issues.
PS: A way to "speed up" the process would be to actually "dummy edit" each usepage, since that will update the category, but I don't think that that is a good idea due to (among other things) the large number of userpages involved.
Hope this helps : ) - jc37 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The page is way too messy. Every day, the page gets a "Speedy Deletion" notice. Whoever has contributed a lot to it, I don't think you want to see it go. I reccomend that everyone who contributed to the page, and doesn't want to see their work go down the drain, help fix it. Thanks, Meldshal42 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject has 2 official naming conventions for subcategories for some reason, instead of just one. It uses both "WikiProject x members" and "WikiProject x participants". Does anyone else support deciding on one, and renaming the rest? Personally I prefer participants. There are also several subcategories I noticed that don't match either of these conventions, and should be renamed to whatever we decide on. We could also decide on a completely new naming convention such as "Wikipedians in WikiProject x" but that would mean even more work. VegaDark 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is use of Template:Participant. This userbox puts the user in the "participants" category. In the case of chemistry, I think the Project decided on "members" and only a few people who have used this template are in the "participants" category. I suggest that this template be edited so it does not put the user in any category. I also suggest that the Chemistry Project have a userbox that puts the user in the member category. -- Bduke 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Update - Tennessee has chosen "participant" and is done. It looks like Chemistry is very close to a definitive decision on "member." Good evidence that the projects themselves can take care of this. -- NThurston 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A reason for deletion that comes up is that the given user category doesn't facilitate collaboration. Personally I think few if any of the user categories we have encourage collaboration at all. Is there any evidence whatsoever that users actually browse these categories for the off-chance that the people in it want to collaborate on some articles? If so, encourage them to join or start an associated WikiProject. They can still find the others by checking whatlinkshere on the userbox. But the primary use that comes to mind is social networking, i.e. finding other users with the same interests. WP:UC is inactive, and I don't know whether there was any original encyclopedic reason to start the old lists. – Pomte 13:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Before we get started on those group discussions, the first of which should be Category:Wikipedians by website, the main question I wanted to get at was how these categories help Wikipedia at all. Autograph books in user subpages are getting kept at MfD (mainly) due to a quote by Jimbo Wales: "You keep asking how [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly." I think people would support user categories for the same reason. Do you think it applies here? – Pomte 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the simplest answer is that direct collaboration is not the only reason to keep a user cat. And I think that's what User:Jimbo Wales is getting at above, that such things can help in the process of building the encyclopedia, without needing to be a 1:1 ratio of user cat to article. Exopedianism and Metapedianism are of course welcome, but they are not the only perspectives on building the encyclopedia : ) - jc37 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In my view, the "user categories facilitate collaboration" argument is fallacious. WikiProjects facilitate collaboration. The WikiProject system is very well-developed and fine-grained, and each of hundreds of projects is geared specifically towards improving articles.
Just consider the words "project" and "category". One is about the articles you're working on or would like to work on; the other is about identifying yourself according to a group you feel you belong to. One is about doing; the other is about being. If you want to collaborate on articles, you can join a project, and jump right in. If you want to make claims about what you are, you may do so on your user page, without putting yourself into a category to make it easy to find others who share your ideology, or who also like ice cream(?!).
Despite the surprised-looking punctuation, I see a lot less harm in these categories that apparently "do not facilitate collaboration" than in the political, religious and ideological ones that supposedly do. User categories aren't for helping write articles, therefore they're just for fun, and there's no reason to tell people they can't have a category about how much they love their pet gerbil. That's an arbitrary exercise of power over activities that aren't even connected to the encyclopedia; I see no reason for it.
Categories that identify users according to ideology however, have a history of being abused to "round up posses" and muscle deletion arguments in a desired direction by numbers. I'm not aware that they have any history of being used for developing articles. I think it's time to revisit the whole question of user categories. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:UCFD#W b W renaming was closed as consensus to rename on all but a few items. However, well-reasoned objections were supplied against several other of the renames, and largely unaddressed, so there was no consensus on those items (and in another case, no objections were raised against one of the items flagged as "no consensus" (WikiProject Current Local City Time members), meanwhile both in the debate and here on the talk page several parties (SMcCandlish i.e. me, NThurston with caveat, Bduke with note about duplicate categories sometimes arising, Pomte who labelled the matter "trivial", while even the closer Jc37 noted that the issue has been contentious) agreed in one way or another that there isn't any paricular reason to interfere with reasonable choices by WikiProjects about how they want to name their user categories, and no objections were raised against this view. I thus have to dispute the closure results' validity. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in how you came to that conclusion.
The changes that went through were very nearly speediable:
Now I presume that your concerns are about the first three due to order of wording?
I suppose I could make this simple and count "votes", I see two opposed (you two) and five in support. I could get more technical and suggest that SMcCandlish's initial concerns were that the WikiPRojects retain the right to determine whether to use members or participants (which was retained in the closure). For the later question of clarity for cue sports, NThurston gave weak support, but only in limited usage, preferring convention, but that still was opposed by the other four commenter's concerns for a single convention.
I removed the three that did not include members or participants in the name at all, since that was seemingly divisive in the discussion, and had the added benefit of removing the editor's assistance cat, which was also a concern.
I hope this clears things up for you. - jc37 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the first question at the root of the matter really is "Can there ever, for any reason be an exception to the members/participants-last convention?". The second of course is "If so, under what conditions?" Clearly, my answer to the first question is "yes", and this view is supported in general pretty much WP-wide in other venues of a similar nature (most relatedly CfD, SfD and RM). Even MoS, which is anal as hell, especially at MOSNUM, recognizes the value of flexibility in such conventions, because understandability is more important than 100% conformity. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to go about this is simply to develop a naming convention (and by corrollary, an inclusion convention) for user categories.
I'm going to spend some time going through every user category (ugh @ me for volunteering), and take some notes along the way. There are subcats of subcats of subcats.
Comments are welcome : ) - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I would like discussed in the meantime is the creation of a template for "parent categories" which should not have Wikipedian userpages as members, but are only organisational catgegories, designed to hold only sub-categories (and possibly historical lists). It should not be garish, or huge, but should be clearly evident by the casual reader.
Once we decide on that, then we'll decide which categories should have it.
And after that, in one action, we'll depopulate those categories. (In one action, so that we don't rack up a zillion page changes to user pages, so to, hopefully, minimise confusion, and possible disruption.) - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing is that I think we're going to have to require is that there must be a link in a category introduction to every userbox which transcludes the category. This is rather necessary especially in light of the large amount of userboxes being subst: and/or userfied due to recent "migration" actions. It's making it more and more difficult to find populating templates, and such. - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there an admin that could look at my speedy noms and either close or re-list as non-speedy? -- NThurston 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well considering I asked above that we wait a bit before nominating more of the W b W cats, I probably shouldn't be the one to do so : ) - jc37 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor point: VegaDark pointed out twice that Wikitext is uppercase and Jc37 seems to agree. However, in the wikitext article 'W' is only capitalized when it is the first word in a sentence. See also the primary source Help:Wikitext examples. Wikitext is not a specific language but a class of them, so I guess that strips it of its proper noun status. – Pomte 03:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this category has reared its head again. This time resulting in an arbcom case. Please see User talk:JzG#Fascist Wikipedians for more information. - jc37 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The "like" vs "interested in" debate.
I was reading through Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox, which seems to apply to this discussion, especially Content, and category inclusion.
While I think "interested in" or even some other phrase may replace the verbs: favors, likes, loves, prefers, and fascinated by; I think the replacement is subjective, and could possibly be argued that the distinction is merely WP:ILIKEIT or more appropriately WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
That said, I think I'm shifting to semi-neutral on this aspect of the debate.
However, the other verbs, such as: listens, watches, plays, etc are more specific, and "useful" distinctions. And I still strongly oppose changing all subcats of Category:Wikipedians to "interested in".
As stated above on this page, and elsewhere, User categories do not have to be directly collaborative in order to be useful for collaboration.
I welcome other's thoughts on this. - jc37 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This brings me back to changing the naming convention to Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on x-related topics. I don't see it as an ILIKEIT argument one way or the other, the only thing I look at is how likely the name of the category will facilitate collaboration, and "interested" always wins out over "likes" for me in that regard (although still can be improved, as I mentioned first). If wanting the categories to have more collaborative names is an ILIKEIT argument, then I guess I am guilty as charged. And now I know this is where Pomte will ask- "But do you have any evidence that one name is more collaborative than the other?" and my answer is no, I only have my judgement to go by, which tells me it is (mostly for the reasons SMcCandlish mentions, some fanboy is more likely to join a "wikipedians who like x tv show" category just to proclaim what they "dig" than a "wikipedians interested in x tv show" category. VegaDark 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
After having had to correct quite a few userpages due to others' unintentional code breaking, and seeing so many userboxes (including subst ones) with incorrectly coded category inclusion, I've added some syntax information at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Syntax for including categories.
I think that Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox and it's subsections (of which the above link is one) should be required reading for anyone working on userboxes with category inclusion. Hoping this helps. - jc37 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Per the recent discussions, I've updated Wikipedia:Userboxes to reflect what did at least have consensus. Essentially preference verbs, such as "like, love, enjoy" should be changed to a more specific verb, or at least, "interested in". - jc37 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
to:
per several UCFD discussions.
Which leaves us with more than several redlinks. If anyone knows a bot owner who might like to help with this, drop me a note here or on my talk page. - jc37 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
ists
parameter has to be figured out by a human. –
Pomte
23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Category:Wikipedians by number of edits and all subcategories speedy deletable per this CFD? It has been almost a year, however, and consensus can change. Would UCFD'ing this be be better? VegaDark ( talk) 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
From what I can tell almost every single category nominated by Patricknoddy today was created by himself from a redlinked category he found that was populated. Someone needs to explain to him that this is not what should be done, and also speedy close all the nominations of categories he created due to original author request. I'll be busy for a while but I will help when I am done. VegaDark 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The UCFD process is needed to justify depopulating a user category (except for categories solely populated by a userbox, a process is necessary to justify editing other users' user pages), so these categories should have been nominated. A nomination _requires_ adding a template. This was absolutely the right course of action and I don't see what else you think he should have done. -- Random832 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be needed to justify depopulating a redlinked category. I say just remove redlinked categories from all user pages and templates. If a UCFD were necessary in each case, that would require many, many more times the number of categories that he already created and nominated. It also sounds like a huge loophole that could be taken advantage of: If someone wanted to, they could add themselves to hundreds of redlinked categories and we would need to create each and then go through a 7 day UCFD for every one if what you say is true, which would develop a huge backlog and a lot of unnecessary work. VegaDark 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Would this process be faster/preferred for trivial renaming such as alma mater: Edit the userbox to use the correctly named category, create it, and then WP:CSD#C1 the old empty cat after 4 days. – Pomte 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've realized we've had some deletions, but they never took place. We need a bot or something like that to keep up with the deletions, mergers, etc. - Patricknoddy TALK (reply here)| HISTORY 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through quite a few userboxes adjusting categories to match current consensus (most recently, the native language programming language cats). I've found that if the userbox has a double redirect (as due to userfication, for example), the cats take a LONG time to depopulate, even though the userpages show the new, updated category. Obviously we should avoid deleting a category before depopulating it, however, I've found that if I go through every remaining member of the category, and find that each's category has changed, but this just hasn't been reflected (yet) in the category listing, then it's safe to delete, with the presumption that the servers will eventually catch up, and depopulate the category. Just thought I would mention this for anyone else who may have had similar issues.
PS: A way to "speed up" the process would be to actually "dummy edit" each usepage, since that will update the category, but I don't think that that is a good idea due to (among other things) the large number of userpages involved.
Hope this helps : ) - jc37 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The page is way too messy. Every day, the page gets a "Speedy Deletion" notice. Whoever has contributed a lot to it, I don't think you want to see it go. I reccomend that everyone who contributed to the page, and doesn't want to see their work go down the drain, help fix it. Thanks, Meldshal42 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject has 2 official naming conventions for subcategories for some reason, instead of just one. It uses both "WikiProject x members" and "WikiProject x participants". Does anyone else support deciding on one, and renaming the rest? Personally I prefer participants. There are also several subcategories I noticed that don't match either of these conventions, and should be renamed to whatever we decide on. We could also decide on a completely new naming convention such as "Wikipedians in WikiProject x" but that would mean even more work. VegaDark 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is use of Template:Participant. This userbox puts the user in the "participants" category. In the case of chemistry, I think the Project decided on "members" and only a few people who have used this template are in the "participants" category. I suggest that this template be edited so it does not put the user in any category. I also suggest that the Chemistry Project have a userbox that puts the user in the member category. -- Bduke 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Update - Tennessee has chosen "participant" and is done. It looks like Chemistry is very close to a definitive decision on "member." Good evidence that the projects themselves can take care of this. -- NThurston 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A reason for deletion that comes up is that the given user category doesn't facilitate collaboration. Personally I think few if any of the user categories we have encourage collaboration at all. Is there any evidence whatsoever that users actually browse these categories for the off-chance that the people in it want to collaborate on some articles? If so, encourage them to join or start an associated WikiProject. They can still find the others by checking whatlinkshere on the userbox. But the primary use that comes to mind is social networking, i.e. finding other users with the same interests. WP:UC is inactive, and I don't know whether there was any original encyclopedic reason to start the old lists. – Pomte 13:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Before we get started on those group discussions, the first of which should be Category:Wikipedians by website, the main question I wanted to get at was how these categories help Wikipedia at all. Autograph books in user subpages are getting kept at MfD (mainly) due to a quote by Jimbo Wales: "You keep asking how [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly." I think people would support user categories for the same reason. Do you think it applies here? – Pomte 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the simplest answer is that direct collaboration is not the only reason to keep a user cat. And I think that's what User:Jimbo Wales is getting at above, that such things can help in the process of building the encyclopedia, without needing to be a 1:1 ratio of user cat to article. Exopedianism and Metapedianism are of course welcome, but they are not the only perspectives on building the encyclopedia : ) - jc37 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In my view, the "user categories facilitate collaboration" argument is fallacious. WikiProjects facilitate collaboration. The WikiProject system is very well-developed and fine-grained, and each of hundreds of projects is geared specifically towards improving articles.
Just consider the words "project" and "category". One is about the articles you're working on or would like to work on; the other is about identifying yourself according to a group you feel you belong to. One is about doing; the other is about being. If you want to collaborate on articles, you can join a project, and jump right in. If you want to make claims about what you are, you may do so on your user page, without putting yourself into a category to make it easy to find others who share your ideology, or who also like ice cream(?!).
Despite the surprised-looking punctuation, I see a lot less harm in these categories that apparently "do not facilitate collaboration" than in the political, religious and ideological ones that supposedly do. User categories aren't for helping write articles, therefore they're just for fun, and there's no reason to tell people they can't have a category about how much they love their pet gerbil. That's an arbitrary exercise of power over activities that aren't even connected to the encyclopedia; I see no reason for it.
Categories that identify users according to ideology however, have a history of being abused to "round up posses" and muscle deletion arguments in a desired direction by numbers. I'm not aware that they have any history of being used for developing articles. I think it's time to revisit the whole question of user categories. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:UCFD#W b W renaming was closed as consensus to rename on all but a few items. However, well-reasoned objections were supplied against several other of the renames, and largely unaddressed, so there was no consensus on those items (and in another case, no objections were raised against one of the items flagged as "no consensus" (WikiProject Current Local City Time members), meanwhile both in the debate and here on the talk page several parties (SMcCandlish i.e. me, NThurston with caveat, Bduke with note about duplicate categories sometimes arising, Pomte who labelled the matter "trivial", while even the closer Jc37 noted that the issue has been contentious) agreed in one way or another that there isn't any paricular reason to interfere with reasonable choices by WikiProjects about how they want to name their user categories, and no objections were raised against this view. I thus have to dispute the closure results' validity. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in how you came to that conclusion.
The changes that went through were very nearly speediable:
Now I presume that your concerns are about the first three due to order of wording?
I suppose I could make this simple and count "votes", I see two opposed (you two) and five in support. I could get more technical and suggest that SMcCandlish's initial concerns were that the WikiPRojects retain the right to determine whether to use members or participants (which was retained in the closure). For the later question of clarity for cue sports, NThurston gave weak support, but only in limited usage, preferring convention, but that still was opposed by the other four commenter's concerns for a single convention.
I removed the three that did not include members or participants in the name at all, since that was seemingly divisive in the discussion, and had the added benefit of removing the editor's assistance cat, which was also a concern.
I hope this clears things up for you. - jc37 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the first question at the root of the matter really is "Can there ever, for any reason be an exception to the members/participants-last convention?". The second of course is "If so, under what conditions?" Clearly, my answer to the first question is "yes", and this view is supported in general pretty much WP-wide in other venues of a similar nature (most relatedly CfD, SfD and RM). Even MoS, which is anal as hell, especially at MOSNUM, recognizes the value of flexibility in such conventions, because understandability is more important than 100% conformity. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the way to go about this is simply to develop a naming convention (and by corrollary, an inclusion convention) for user categories.
I'm going to spend some time going through every user category (ugh @ me for volunteering), and take some notes along the way. There are subcats of subcats of subcats.
Comments are welcome : ) - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I would like discussed in the meantime is the creation of a template for "parent categories" which should not have Wikipedian userpages as members, but are only organisational catgegories, designed to hold only sub-categories (and possibly historical lists). It should not be garish, or huge, but should be clearly evident by the casual reader.
Once we decide on that, then we'll decide which categories should have it.
And after that, in one action, we'll depopulate those categories. (In one action, so that we don't rack up a zillion page changes to user pages, so to, hopefully, minimise confusion, and possible disruption.) - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Another thing is that I think we're going to have to require is that there must be a link in a category introduction to every userbox which transcludes the category. This is rather necessary especially in light of the large amount of userboxes being subst: and/or userfied due to recent "migration" actions. It's making it more and more difficult to find populating templates, and such. - jc37 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there an admin that could look at my speedy noms and either close or re-list as non-speedy? -- NThurston 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well considering I asked above that we wait a bit before nominating more of the W b W cats, I probably shouldn't be the one to do so : ) - jc37 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor point: VegaDark pointed out twice that Wikitext is uppercase and Jc37 seems to agree. However, in the wikitext article 'W' is only capitalized when it is the first word in a sentence. See also the primary source Help:Wikitext examples. Wikitext is not a specific language but a class of them, so I guess that strips it of its proper noun status. – Pomte 03:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this category has reared its head again. This time resulting in an arbcom case. Please see User talk:JzG#Fascist Wikipedians for more information. - jc37 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The "like" vs "interested in" debate.
I was reading through Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox, which seems to apply to this discussion, especially Content, and category inclusion.
While I think "interested in" or even some other phrase may replace the verbs: favors, likes, loves, prefers, and fascinated by; I think the replacement is subjective, and could possibly be argued that the distinction is merely WP:ILIKEIT or more appropriately WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
That said, I think I'm shifting to semi-neutral on this aspect of the debate.
However, the other verbs, such as: listens, watches, plays, etc are more specific, and "useful" distinctions. And I still strongly oppose changing all subcats of Category:Wikipedians to "interested in".
As stated above on this page, and elsewhere, User categories do not have to be directly collaborative in order to be useful for collaboration.
I welcome other's thoughts on this. - jc37 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This brings me back to changing the naming convention to Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on x-related topics. I don't see it as an ILIKEIT argument one way or the other, the only thing I look at is how likely the name of the category will facilitate collaboration, and "interested" always wins out over "likes" for me in that regard (although still can be improved, as I mentioned first). If wanting the categories to have more collaborative names is an ILIKEIT argument, then I guess I am guilty as charged. And now I know this is where Pomte will ask- "But do you have any evidence that one name is more collaborative than the other?" and my answer is no, I only have my judgement to go by, which tells me it is (mostly for the reasons SMcCandlish mentions, some fanboy is more likely to join a "wikipedians who like x tv show" category just to proclaim what they "dig" than a "wikipedians interested in x tv show" category. VegaDark 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
After having had to correct quite a few userpages due to others' unintentional code breaking, and seeing so many userboxes (including subst ones) with incorrectly coded category inclusion, I've added some syntax information at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Syntax for including categories.
I think that Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing a userbox and it's subsections (of which the above link is one) should be required reading for anyone working on userboxes with category inclusion. Hoping this helps. - jc37 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Per the recent discussions, I've updated Wikipedia:Userboxes to reflect what did at least have consensus. Essentially preference verbs, such as "like, love, enjoy" should be changed to a more specific verb, or at least, "interested in". - jc37 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
to:
per several UCFD discussions.
Which leaves us with more than several redlinks. If anyone knows a bot owner who might like to help with this, drop me a note here or on my talk page. - jc37 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
ists
parameter has to be figured out by a human. –
Pomte
23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Category:Wikipedians by number of edits and all subcategories speedy deletable per this CFD? It has been almost a year, however, and consensus can change. Would UCFD'ing this be be better? VegaDark ( talk) 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)