Category talk:Users

Trivial User categories

I would like to suggest removing all the categories that only have a trivial existence, as they are not actually useful. Before I suggest a list of what categories to remove, I'd like to propose a guideline. If a category can help a user track down editors who may have an answer to a particular question the category is useful.

This would mean that the knowledgeable categories can stay, but categories like Category:Right-Handed Users should be removed. Thoughts? --Timenn-<talk> 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No thoughts on this? --Timenn-<talk> 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see this first time around. I totally agree. There are so many of these and they're just annoying. There are a few of them that make sense - the nationality categories for instance, but I would definitely support the removal of the silly ones. –rpeh •T•C•E• 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree some of categories can/should be removed, although I wonder where to draw the line. Of course the knowledgeable categories, nationality and gender should stay, but what about atheist category, LGBT category, categories that show which faction you're part of, the age category, the birthsign category, worship category and the race category? All of them aren't particularly useful if we use Timenn's idea as a guideline, although one could argue they might be relevant/useful. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "real" ones are fine, so out of that list, atheist and LGBT would be fine. The age one is pointless since there are so many possibilities and so few users using it. The others are just made up nonsense. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to argue that the "real" ones are not necessary either. If atheist and LGBT remain, other user categories are legally possible as well. Right-handed is also a real distinction, but gets too trivial. The nationality userboxes are fine with me, they can be used to track the timezones, and are a good way to inform users on how to avoid those horrible Dutch. Gender categories are fine with me as well, as they have plenty of members and can be useful if we wish to start matchmaking. :)

I'll compile a list later on, so we can discuss the individual category groups, as it seems my guideline is not completely supported. --Timenn-<talk> 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually... thinking about it a bit more, you're right. This isn't Facebook. If people want to add userboxes, that's fine, but since all the categories allow is to find other people with the same userbox, I suggest they try a dating site. The Nationality ones are fine since, in addition to timezones, they also point out users who may not have English as a first language. The gender ones are fine since they at least allow use of the correct pronoun when talking about a user. The others... there's no reason for them to exist. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

\=> I'd propose to delete the following categories:

Users with all Achievements Ambidextrous Users Users that have annoyed vandals Atheists Believers Users by Date of Birth group Users Born Under a Birthsign group

Users Who Are a Part of a Faction group Users Knowledgeable About Knowledge Left-Handed Users Music Fans Users Following the Nine Divines Nintendo Users Non-Bear

Pastafarians Users of Known Races group Right-Handed Users Undecided Gender Users Users in the LGBT Community Users wanting an Xbox Users Who Worship a Deity group

Feel free to edit this list along with me as we try to find the best selection. Just mention it here on the talk page what edits you did. --Timenn-<talk> 12:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'd add any to that list, except possibly Non-Patrollers.

This might be a good opportunity to do a bit of reorganisation too. How about putting all the "Knowledgeable" cats into a parent? Ditto with the gender and platform categories. That would the only categories in this one as the lists of people that "do" things (more or less) - Administrators, Artists, Cartographers, Loremasters, Mentors, Patrollers, and Writers. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Initially I almost added the No-Patrollers cat, but I figured it might be useful to list the people who are performing a similar job. I'm neutral about including or excluding it.

I think it's a good idea to make a parent category for all the Knowledgables, but I don't know where you want to put that category instead of here. --Timenn-<talk> 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have been clearer. Have something like Category:Knowledgeable Users that contains all the "Users Knowledgeable about..." cats, "Users by Gender", and "Users by Platform" then put those three in here. Just to categorise the categories a bit. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. --Timenn-<talk> 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to delete any categories listed there. They are not in the way, and they make the wiki more personable and fun (especially for the younger users). They are hardly in your way, and they hardly create any kind of issue. "The others... there's no reason for them to exist." Really? There is no reason for them to not exist, besides the fact that you are merely annoyed by their presence, which is hardly a reason to remove them. Who cares if I want to find more atheists? Who cares if I want to be able to easily find the older or younger users? Who cares if people want to have fun? I know they can still use the boxes, but the categories are there to further the joy. Frankly, I say you can ignore it. There is no reason to delete them. –Elliot ^talk 15:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason at all? Three users have expressed at least some reasons that would support the removal of the categories. You can disagree with those reasons, refute them, but denying anyone else than you has a reason for their view on the matter seems like no good approach to a discussion.

I might as well quote part of a new policy I intend to propose, incidentally this one is almost a straight copy from Wikipedia:

UESPWiki is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. Editors can create their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on UESPWiki. While you are invited to tell a bit about yourself on your user page, the focus of user pages should not be social networking or extensively documenting the adventures of your created characters, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

As rpeh already stated, the purpose of this wiki is not to find friends or people who you can relate to. There's always the issue of notability, and categories who tell you who is an atheist are not relevant to this wiki.

Please assume good faith. You suggest I only try to remove the categories because their presence annoys me. I merely want this to improve this wiki by polishing it. --Timenn-<talk> 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. Removing categories stops it from being "like Facebook"? Hell, you might as well get rid of the userboxes too. Wikipedia has thousands of userboxes with absolutely no relevancy to the wiki. If you want everything on the page to be wiki related, then have a fun time implementing that "serious business" policy. To say that stating your age, or your religion, or your sexual orientation crosses the bridge into the Facebook realm is an outlandish notion if I have ever heard one. Removing the categories for the sake of removing the categories? It's what it seems like you are proposing. The focus is not on the "social networking". That is why there are userboxes: to briefly state info about you. I don't think I have seen someone ramble on about wanting to meet other people or hang out, minus the few fanfiction writers.

So to imply that the categories are what is making the site "closer to a social network" is ridiculous. And I am entitled to my opinion as well as my remarks for disapproval. There are better things to do than to amp up the censoring of the user pages on this site. –Elliot ^talk 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If the categories are not for finding people with the same interests, then what are they for? A userbox can tell visitors to your page about you without needing to join a club, and nobody has even come close to mentioning censoring user pages by removing them. Nobody is saying you're not entitled to your opinion, either. Please stop overreacting to a sensible and straightforward proposal. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am hardly overreacting (I am permitted to disagree with you, rpeh). There is no reason to create the inability/hindrance on users to find similar audiences. Even if it is just to find out more about a person or to find more people like [insert example here]. They aren't hurting anyone by staying there, so I see this conversation as an exhaustion of time. –Elliot ^talk 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're permitted to disagree with me, but I'm not the one making accusations of censorship, accusing Timenn of only removing categories because he finds them annoying, or calling users "outlandish" and "ridiculous".

The comparison to Wikipedia is also false. Most (not all, I agree) of the userbox categories on WP are to do with expertise (language, computer languages and so on) and so are quite relevant to WP's goal since it allows other users to see how competent one judges oneself on certain matters. That is analogous to the categories that would be kept under Timenn's guidelins - categories that show how knowledgeable a user is on the games, for instance.

Furthermore, don't try to end discussions because you personally feel them to be a waste of time. If you don't want to contribute, then don't. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c

I agree with rpeh you are overreacting. You seem to rush in with an attitude like the reasoning of everyone involved is completely wrong. You have yet been barely involved in the discussion and already you claim this discussion is a waste of time.

Like I said, that section I copied originated from Wikipedia, before I modified it for this wiki somewhat. We fall back to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if we don't have anything on the subject. If you wish to propose changing those guidelines you're free to do it, but open up a discussion about that. What is being discussed here is along with those guidelines which were already in place (i.e. consensus), so I fail to see how our statements in that regard can be accused of being "ridiculous". --Timenn-<talk> 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We fall back on WP when applicable, and this is hardly the same. The scope of Wikipedia is much larger than that of the UESPWiki, so to try to base everything (and certainly this) off of it is a bad move.

And rpeh, I was pointing the finger at you: "There are so many of these and they're just annoying." Straight from the horse's mouth. And please don't not put words in my mouth. I said such actions are considered by me to be outlandish and ridiculous, not the users (there is a huge difference).

This is a much smaller community, so it is going to have a different feel than that of Wikipedia (as it should). But to say people can't post info on their characters is just a move out in left field. As long as they are an active contributor, what difference does it make? Yeah, I agree that some of it can be toned down, especially for users that don't edit anything else (such as VergilSparda). But to remove categories for the sake of removing them is pointless move. –Elliot ^talk 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well using WP as a base for policy is the way the wiki has always worked, so tough; I was quoting Timenn's summary of your reason ("You suggest I only try to remove the categories because their presence annoys me"); and don't split hairs about the difference between a user and their actions. Now, back to business. I'm trying to improve the wiki. What are you doing? rpeh •T•C•E• 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to stop you from potentially messing something up. If it isn't broke, then don't fix it. No, not "so tough". There have been cases before when the wiki molds the WP policy to its size, and I see this case as being no different. And yes, there is a colossal difference between someone and a single action. If I intended to insult your person, I would have worded it as such. And there is no need to look for validation within my actions. If I agreed that this was a good way to go, I wouldn't be here. But when I see someone potentially foul something up, I have every right to voice my disagreement. –Elliot ^talk 16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at what I said, and look at what Timenn said: "using WP as a base for policy is the way the wiki has always worked" and "We fall back to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if we don't have anything on the subject" respectively. Whether you want to deny it or not, that is the way it has always worked. Always. Attacking people for stating the unarguable truth won't accomplish anything. Timenn is molding a WP policy to the wiki, so stop claiming otherwise. Again, you insult other users by using pejorative phrases like "messing something up", "foul something up" and so on. You are overreacting in a simple discussion. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made my case, and I will not continue as it is completely pointless to argue with you (notice the part where I partially agreed with you a few lines up). I will not revert to the ad hominem that you are currently employing and implying I am using. I will just wait to see what others have to say on the topic and reply then. –Elliot ^talk 16:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not one of my comments has been ad hominem, whereas almost all of yours have been. In fact, you just did it again ("completely pointless to argue with you"). Quite apart from anything else, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with three people. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

<- I don't agree that the categories need removing but if they are then it's easy to use 'What Links Here' like this to see who else is using a userbox. It doesn't work with multi-purpose boxes but for the rest it's ok. This should be brought to the community though. ‒ Joram↝Talk 20:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and it will be. This was supposed to be a preliminary discussion to determine the scope of any proposed deletion rather than the discussion about deletion itself. Even though these categories do not benefit the wiki in any way, there would have to be a full discussion before disposing of them. If there are no further additions, and no deletions from Timenn's suggested list, then it can be moved to a more appropriate venue. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, I really don't care what happens either way. I created Non-Bear as a joke. Hell, the whole user box was a joke. There's no real reason for keeping them, as many people have said. On the other hand, how much reason is there to delete them? Wikipedia has 143,781 active editors, we have 283. We can afford to have people get a little more personal with categories. We've been a wiki over 4 years now, and we've accumulated less than 30 user categories that need deletion. Not everything has to be relevant to the wiki. They aren't hurting anyone. If our goal is to clean something up, the best place to start would be the huge 'Notes' sections that have accumulated in some of the Quest articles. --Ratwar 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Really they are only posted on a users page for personalization and it does not effect anything. I know this is not a social networking site but they are just fun little things to have. I don't know how much of a say I have in this seeing as I am not an admin or mentor or any other higher ranking position but please take this into account.--Corevette789 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against creating userboxes (it was, alas, me that created the category for Non-Bear). Userboxes brighten things up a bit, and nobody seems to have a problem with them. The categories clog stuff up and often lead to unnecessary work for site staff (and amateurs like me - here is one case).

More than that, it's only a matter of time before there is a flame war over the use of userboxes. In the past I had to slap down certain users for making homophobic comments on pages where users had identified themselves as gay or bi, and we've had other similar insults from ED idiots. I nixed two templates about evolution and creationism because they were only ever going to cause arguments.

Seriously. There is no reason for these things to exist, and the main reason for them not to exist is that they fall well, well outside the scope of the project. Simply looks at the top of every page: "The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995". I'm sure if Daveh wanted to set up a dating site, he would have done so.

UESP already has a rule against treating talk pages like a forum: if you want to talk about your favorite sword, do it on a message board somewhere. Similarly, if you are 30-40, female, live in the London area, with an interest in King Crimson and other progressive rock bands, call me - there are better sites than this to find a match. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the UESP already has a forum, thus the delete forum style talk page rule. We don't have a dating site...--Ratwar 23:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is creating more diversity in opinions than I originally thought it would. It looks to me that categories like Atheists and Non-Bear, categories related to the user itself, are still under discussion. But I haven't heard anyone speak yet about the categories related to the game characters people have, categories like Users Who Are a Part of a Faction and Users of Known Races. Is anyone in favour of keeping those too?

Another discussion that popped up is the reorganization of categories. Should we bring the more trivial categories together, so this category is cleaned up a bit? --Timenn-<talk> 12:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where was the discussion closed that said the categories could be deleted? –Elliot ^talk 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you were out-"voted"? --Timenn-<talk> 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, what actually happened is that two users abused of the userbox by saying that they had 1256743 years old, when they clearly don't, that's why they were deleted. But as I seem to recall, none of the other categories have been prodded. --S'drassa ^•T2M 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since people went about normal standards for decision making, I will recreate them unless a new decision is made. –Elliot ^talk 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(/outdent) Elliot, you seem to be the only one opposed to having these categories deleted. The consensus here is implied: Timenn, rpeh, Wolok all agreed they should go; I'm adding my name to the list as well in case you're wondering. Also, GK isn't against this since she didn't have any qualms about deleting all of them. The categories was deleted after the week of prodding had gone by, without any further objections. Recreating the categories is nothing but an obstruction and nuisance since they will be deleted again. Furthermore, the only thing you're achieving by acting so irrationally is frustrating other users. You have to accept the fact that sometimes you must bow yourself to consensus, even if you don't like it. A wiki works on majority I'm afraid, not on appeasing the minorities. Please think about this before you go ahead creating those categories again. --SerCenKing ^Talk 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually created some of those userboxes back in the HMSVictory days, but of course I never intended to use them to create a category or anything like that. Honestly, I really don't see why I even put them up in the first place, as they have absolutely nothing to do with TES. On this point, I don't actually wholly disagree with you, Elliot, but there should be boundaries for this. My thinking is that if it has no relevance to TES, then there's no reason for it to have a category. If there is a relevance to TES then we might as well leave it be. Deleting any or all of these caegories won't change anything. It certainly won't discourage users to write about their own experiences of the game, including their characters. Yes, users like VergilSparda go on for far too long, but on the flipside Nephele has quite a lot of information about her characters on her userpage and is one of the most constructive editors here. But I digress. If it has nothing to do with TES then it should be limited to the userbox itself and nothing more. I know I can't really talk since as HMSVictory I spent half my time editing my userpage, but as Itachi I've set up my page and left it, apart from one or two updates. What would probably be an effective solution to this over-editing is simply notifiying the editors in question when they do this, rather than creating a somewhat intimidating what the UESP is not page. -Itachi 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't numbers. Needlessly deleting categories just for the sake of deleting the categories. If that is how you wish to badly run the wiki, then by all means. –Elliot ^talk 18:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is by no means "needlessly deleting categories" if the community feels there is a need, and it's certainly not "badly running the wiki." These categories make little difference to anyone but Daveh; if they are here, they aren't creating much more of a problem than annoyance, and if they aren't here then it won't affect anyone who uses those userboxes negatively. From this discussion it seems the only person who would actually be affected is you, Elliot. I'm not disagreeing with you, but the whole issue does come to a logical end when you consider it from the admin's point of view. People's enjoyment of the site won't change whether these categories exist or not - most editors, especially new ones, don't use categories as a means of navigation. -Itachi 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reasonable argument for keeping categories on the userboxes mentioned was to use them to see who uses the userboxes, and in the case of the User-Age group that I deleted, to find out the ages of editors, to find out how many older/younger/etc., edit the wiki. These userboxes, however, were not being used in a truthful manner and so the categories couldn't be used for that purpose anymore. I can't think of one logical reason those categories need to be there, and keeping the category on the template would only cause extra work for those editors who monitor "wanted categories" and would have to create a new article any time a new editor decided they wanted to say they were ten-thousand years old. So, the category was deleted from the userbox template a week ago, at which time the categories were also prodded. To summarize, any reason given for keeping the categories no longer applied to the user-age group. They went through the normal seven-day period of being proposed for deletion; no one objected in that time, so I deleted them. I simply can't understand how this could possibly be controversial. No one is suggesting that we out-law the userboxes or the templates, only that we not maintain categories for them. --GK^talk2me 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this could potentially become a huge grey area. For example, Category:Users Who Worship a Deity has many members, but Category:Users wanting an Xbox has only one. If we delete them on the basis of mis-use and/or membership, we would have to draw clear boundaries at some point. It might not be controversial but it doesn't look good to simply delete categories at will simply because a user or a group of users decides they are being mis-used or aren't large enough. Obviously "Users wanting an Xbox" could clearly be deleted without any forseeable complaints, but some of the others may stir up opposition if they are nominated. -Itachi 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First, rpeh prodded categories that were part of a topic being discussed, and then you deleted them. So, yeah, both of you were wrong. But again, I don't care since this is something I would expect from the wiki. –Elliot ^talk 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You had a week to object. You didn't. Policy was followed. Deal with it.

Itachi - the difference is that Users wanting an Xbox is a binary category - you're either in it or you're not. The age one was a waste of time when people were using it accurately, but became stupid when people started claiming to be born in 1538 or pi. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly who are you addressing Elliot? And if you don't care then why are you still adding to the discussion? Just becuase these editors disagree with you on this point doesn't mean the entire wiki can be discredited as such. These categories are hardly an issue that should be causing so much argument - it's not like there's been a massive policy change or anything. -Itachi 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would expect such a smart-ass reply from someone who broke policy and got caught. And a waste of time? For whom? You? Someone who did nothing with it? Gee, I am sorry you had to waste 0 minutes on a site which you spend 13 hours a day. –Elliot ^talk 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to make ad hominem comments, you will receive an official warning. As for the waste of time, please read GK's comment: "keeping the category on the template would only cause extra work for those editors who monitor "wanted categories" and would have to create a new article any time a new editor decided they wanted to say they were ten-thousand years old". rpeh •T•C•E• 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be much easier to prevent any non-template userboxes from creating categories in the first place? -Itachi 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't care anymore. Run your wiki the way you choose. –Elliot ^talk 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, any reason given for keeping the categories no longer applied to the user-age group, so they seemed uncontroversial to me, unless someone decided to oppose just for opposition's sake. They were given the normal seven-day waiting period, which does follow policy. If anyone disagreed with my assessment that they were uncontroversially prodded, they had seven days to express those opinions by simply removing the prod tag or changing it to a Deletion Review tag and continuing the discussion. No one did so, implying that the community supported the categories being deleted. I don't see where anyone "broke policy". Either way, this has been done. The proper course of action for any editors that wish to see the user-age categories recreated would be to bring this to the community (i.e. the Community Portal) to get a wider range of opinions. The proper course of action for any editors who feel that anyone "broke policy" would be to bring that, also, to the community to see if that view is shared. Further discussion of either of those two topics here is unproductive. --GK^talk2me 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)