Wikipedia talk:User categories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Consensus

The page as it stands seems a little too tight on whether it truly is consensus that user categories be used in the manner prescribed. There's been no consensus on whether redlinked cats shgould be removed from user talk pages at the pump, and the consensus for what constitutes usefulness in a user cat differs on the mailing list to that which is argues at WP:UCFD. Personally I think every category should be judged on its own merits, and that a consensus of Wikipedians should decide the utility or lack of it. Hiding T 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidleline status

Does this guideline have consensus to be a guideline, and did it ever go through a proper process to be called a guideline?

---

Note the above talk is older than the corresponding article text?

Where did this guideline come from? Where was it discussed? Guidelines exist because of wide-ranging discussion and consensus, not the tradition of a small group of editors who claim guideline by assertion. All previous attempts to create a guideline about user categories has failed to get consensus, and despite (or because of) its age, I don't see anything backing up this text either.

According to Wikipedia:Guideline#Proposals, a proposed guideline should go to an RfC to gain, and show, wide community support. Is there an RfC for this page? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This guideline originated in Wikipedia:Userboxes (another guideline), was split from there about 18 months ago, and some parts were added later on (like the section "Syntax for including user categories in a userbox"). It was discussed and advertised in a variety of locations, including the Village Pump and User categories for discussion; since then, it has been discussed or mentioned at dozens of other locations.

The recommendation (not requirement) to use RfC applies only to policies, not to guidelines; moreover, that recommendation was not even in place when this guideline came into being (see here).

As for the {{disputedtag}}, I replaced it with {{underdiscussion}} per the text of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "The {{disputedtag}} template is typically used instead of {{underdiscussion}} for claims that a page was recently assigned guideline or policy status without proper or sufficient consensus being established." (emphasis added) This page was tagged as a guideline around 18 months ago, which is definitely not recent. I apologize for any confusion I caused by replacing the tag before I posted on this talk page.

Do you have any specific concerns about the guidance given in the guideline? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So, the userbox policy in March 2008, [1], which was also disputed and never demonstrated consensus at that time, was split to this, and carried the guideline box. It carried over about two sentences that are currently in this text. Then the rest of this text was written after those two sentences, without any discussion. So one disputed guideline split into two disputed guidelines, with mostly the same group of people writing both, in a vacuum, without actually getting any feedback from the rest of Wikipedia.

In one of your edit summaries, you said there was a Village Pump discussion and gave me a link. That "discussion" was a bot announcing this new guideline. Bot announcements are not discussions. Please, please, show me some discussions with lots of contributors!

I was glad that WP:UCFD was finally merged back to WP:CFD, since it never had a good reason to exist in the first place, except for a bit of pique by Radiant! getting tired of wiki-cops abusing CFD.

As to specific concerns - the whole section on syntax in userboxes doesn't belong here at all, that's half the page. The rest of it is objectionable as instruction creep. Some of it is good advice, but what is plainly obvious is that the users who've written it and want it to be a guideline want an excuse to go around policing, editing and controlling other people's user pages. Everything else might be good advice, but the only things that need to be in a guideline are already in a well read, well distributed, and well discussed existing guideline, the last paragraph here Wikipedia:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Note well the second-to-last paragraph as well. The user-space cops who use this guideline as their basis to delete user material are directly in opposition to that advice in WP:USER. User categories that are not disruptive should be left alone. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

While certain portions of the userbox guideline have been disputed at times, it is misleading to characterize the whole guideline itself as "disputed" and "never demonstrat[ing] consensus". In fact, this discussion (which came at the same time as the addition of the disputed tag) shows support for UBX as a guideline.

In my edit summary, I said that the guideline was "advertised on dozens of project pages including Village pump"; I never said that the discussion was located there. Most of what's on this page has been compiled from a variety of sources, including WP:UBX, various talk page discussions (WT:UCFD, WT:UBX, etc.), and the results of hundreds upon hundreds of CfD discussions.

A section on general syntax in userboxes would not belong here, but a section on syntax for including user categories in userboxes does not really seem out-of-place in a guideline about user categories.

I don't understand why you why you mention WP:USER, since that guideline applies to user pages and pages in userspace, not to categories.

For the sake of constructive dialogue, I would ask you to withdraw a few portions of the rest of your comment. There is no need to resort to comments like "the users who've written it and want it to be a guideline want an excuse to go around policing, editing and controlling other people's user pages"—I didn't write this guideline, by the way—and to refer to editors as "user-space cops". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't remove any text, because policing user page content (which WP:USER says is not our job) is the goal; creating laws and asking for enforcement is what police do, and that's the goal here. There is a basic mismatch between the goals of this guideline and the goals of the Wikipedia project.

Again, why did I bring up WP:USER... The philosophy expressed on this page and on CfD is fundamentally opposed to this: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption."

Building a guideline on how to treat deletion discussions AFTER the discussions have already taken place is backwards. Saying you are relying on precedent and tradition, when the group building the tradition never had a good set of rules to begin with, is... broken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read the talk page archives for WP:UBX now. I don't see any discussion of creating this page, nor discussion of the text on it. Can you please point me to a discussion yet? The wild goose chase at VPP led to a bot, and WP:UBX had nothing resembling this text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You write as if only police organizations have and/or enforce rules... In any case, this guideline is not about user page content (you wrote "policing user page content ... is the goal"), but rather about the creation, organization, and maintenance of a separate class of pages: user categories.

I appreciate that you clarified why you mentioned WP:USER, but still I don't see how it applies. WP:USER applies to content on user pages and in userspace, but user categories are separate pages in a separate namespace. There is a big difference between adding to one's user page the comment "I like fudge" versus creating a category called Category:Wikipedians who like fudge and placing one's user page in that category.

As for your last point, I have two comments. First, this is not a guideline on how to treat deletion discussions. It's no more a deletion guideline than WP:UBX, WP:USER, or WP:LAYOUT. Second, it is completely natural that the content of a guideline reflects common practice and outcomes. Guidelines are not created from thin air; rather, they are constructed and evolve based on the outcomes of discussions.

I'm afraid I must be logging off soon, but I'll be happy to continue our discussion in a couple of hours. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"you clarified why you mentioned WP:USER, but still I don't see how it applies. WP:USER applies to content on user pages and in userspace, but user categories are separate pages in a separate namespace." Partially incorrect, and partially missing the point. WP:USER does not make a contextual separation between user pages and user categories, as you claim. Also, WP:USER contains all that needs to be said about User Categories, and has said it for years, since 2004: "Do not put your userpage or subpages, including work-in-progress articles, into categories used by Wikipedia articles (example: Category:1990 births). Be careful of templates and stub notices that put a work-in-progress article into categories." & etc. WP:USER has had advice on user categories since 2004 and is well trafficked and discussed. This page is not well-discussed, and given the number of editors, certainly not well-trafficked. This proposal takes a much more restrictive view of user categories compared to WP:USER. Why is this proposal necessary?

You say that this proposal is not about deletion discussions, but this proposed guideline, the editors who wrote it, the editors who quote it in deletion discussions, the editors defending it, the supporting pages of precedence, these are all inextricably linked together. You are in fact quoting the deletion discussions as the precedence for the guideline, when it is the same group of people in the deletion discussions creating and defending the guideline. If half-a-dozen of the most active UCFD discussion participants went away, UCFD would cease to exist. UCFD as a process, and this proposal as its rationale, have formed a bubble that is outside the mainstream of Wikipedia discussions. The "precedence of hundreds of UCFD discussions" is the WP:ILIKEIT preferences of the same half-a-dozen people. If this has wide ranging consensus, then a proper discussion on the merits of this proposal, as well as a proper proposal process, will bear that out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There's a fundamental flaw in your entire premise, and that is that user categories and userspace content are one in the same. That isn't true at all. As you're well aware, there is no userspace equivalent for categories. There are only category-space categories, and thus, user categories fall under the same basic restrictions of article-space categories, in that their existence must further some sort of encyclopedic goal, or they will be deleted. For purposes of user categories, the most obvious way to accomplish such a goal is to make collaboration on a encyclopedic topic easier by grouping people together by interest (although there are a few other encyclopedic uses for user categories, such as the language categories). Your position is that users should have free reign to create whatever user categories they want, so long as it isn't "disruptive". This presents another problem as what is "disruptive" to one person isn't disruptive to the next. For instance, I interpret creating any user categories that don't benefit the encyclopedia disruptive, as it disrupts the category system in being able to find users to collaborate with, hence why I nominate so many for deletion. These helpful categories become much harder to find when "funny" or "myspacey" categories that don't help the encyclopedia at all are mixed in with the rest. You, on the other hand, obviously wouldn't find these types of categories disruptive (considering you support polluting categories intented to be collaborative with your userpage as a joke, as evidenced by you repeatedly adding Category:Wikipedians by religion to your userpage, I can't imagine you would find much if anything disruptive). VegaDark (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:USER has had direction about user categories pretty much since it's inception in 2004. They were considered the same then, and they are now, and you've shown nothing but your own unbacked up assertion that they needed to be treated separately. Categories are not encyclopedic content, or they would be no user categories ever, at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Without getting into the rights and wrongs about what this page say, I do not think it should be a guideline until there is a wider community consensus that it should be. The banner that it was a guideline was placed on this page by the person who created it with their second edit without any community agreement on the talk page that it should be one. The guideline banner should be replaced with a proposed guideline banner, a new section should be opened on this talk page and the invitation to be a guideline should be widely advertised (Village pump, RfC and postings to related guidelines etc). Questions such as those that SchmuckyTheCat and the points that VegaDark and Black Falcon can then be considered and a community wide decision can be taken. -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, this page was essentially split off from an existing guideline and following months of on-and-off discussions in various locations; it was neither unexpected nor hidden (see e.g., Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User categories has been marked as a guideline). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• If anything, this is a {{How-to}}.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• The actual question, based on the problems seen in mant CfD (and, earlier, UCfD debates, is not the guideline itself, but the meaning of the sentence, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia."--in particular, the word I have italicised. Recalling these debates, the consensus among the very limited number of people regularly participating seems to have been an extremely narrow understanding of that phrase. The defenders, each time, were limited to the people who wanted that single particular category, and so the people who consistently wanted to delete many such categories were able to pick them off one at a time. The idea apparently never got across that it would be necessary to defend all such categories that fit a broad interpretation. (this is a problem at XfD in general, not just user categories). Basically, there was a fairly successful attempt to limit tit to categories that could be shown to be directly pertinent to improving the encyclopedia, and a refusal to accept that encouraging people of common interests helped participation in a broader sense. the actual fear seems to have been that people would join to defend articles on a favorite subject--as if that were a bad thing. I do not think the narrow interpretation here had any broad consensus, and only survived because a small group made it their priority. I think the broad consensus would be better expressed by adding a phrase and saying, " the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia--and for encouraging users interested in particular topics to participate in the encyclopedia." and saying: This is intended to interpreted broadly, and used only to prevent categories having no helkpful relation to the encyclopedia." DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"The defenders, each time, were limited to the people who wanted that single particular category, and so the people who consistently wanted to delete many such categories were able to pick them off one at a time." This. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

As far as I can tell, this RFC is simply another effort by SchmuckyTheCat to push for acceptance of categories such as Category:Wikipedians who crack boiled eggs on the rounded end, which SchmuckyThecat created in 2007 as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by religion. So please keep in mind, when talking about "broad interpretations", that SchmuckyTheCat is not talking here about the sort of categories that most people would view as constructive to the encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But looking back over Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index I see about an equal mix of defensible and non-defensible. I am also well aware of what happened to me when I as a relative newcomer tried to defend some against a small group who were cutting very broad swathes with repetitive arguments. I particular recall "blind leading the blind" . Perhaps I would feel better now had I not gone back and looked. And it's not that I use these categories myself. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my recent comment in the edit summary ("what RfC"), I see now that it was a reference to the discussion here. However, this is a discussions that never received much comment to start with, received mixed reactions, and has been dead for two months--hardly a basis for doing anything.

Regarding the claims that user category discussions tended to involve a small group of people... well, there's a saying about leading horses to water. Consensus is formed by those who show up, and as long as discussions are properly held and advertised (i.e., tagged and left open for the proper amount of time--by the way, UCfD discussions were often left open for weeks), it makes no sense to invoke the possibility that others who didn't bother to participate in the discussions may have felt differently had they cared enough to comment in the first place. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A few questions

I would like to pose a few questions to those who believe this page should not be a guideline, and I would ask you to consider that sentiment in light of your responses to these questions:

• Do you agree with the notion that a guideline should reflect common, consensus-supported practice?
• If you do, then how would you justify the existence of categories such as Category:Wikipedians who like to eat cheese, Category:Well endowed Wikipedians, and Category:Wikipedians that poop (if you think I'm pulling these examples out of my ass, then please see SchmuckyTheCat's user page), especially in light of the fact that these types of categories have been discussed tens of times and rejected virtually every single time (see index)?
• If you do agree that there should be some guidance regarding user categories (for example, to exclude categories like the ones above), then would it not make more sense to discuss modifications or adjustments rather than to do away with all portions of the guideline, including uncontroversial ones such as that "user categories must be sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians" and should not be mixed with mainspace categories?

Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1. There already is a guideline. WP:USER has verbiage on acceptable uses of categories on user pages. WP:USER has existed for many, many, years and expresses very wide consensus. This page was created as a guideline with no discussion at all, and remains known only to a few users.
2. The redlinked categories on my userpage have never existed or if they did, I just joined them for giggles and left them on my page even after being deleted. So please don't make this an RfC about me.
3. There already is a guideline. This is superfluous to WP:USER. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
   1. Firstly, WP:USER is and should remain primarily about user pages not user categories. Secondly, you did not answer my question. If you agree that a guideline should reflect common, consensus-supported practice, then you cannot ignore the hundreds upon hundreds of CfD discussions that form the basis of this guideline. Thirdly, this guideline was advertised at the Village pump, is linked from Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and multiple category-related policy/guideline/proces pages, and was and is referenced routinely in user category discussions (both at UCfD and CfD), so any insinuation that it was somehow hidden or kept secret simply lacks credibility.
   2. The redlinked categories on your userpage may have never existed, but plenty of others just like it have (e.g., Category:Wikipedians who are zombies, Category:Wikipedians concerned about their weight). Your comments here and elsewhere (as well as the fact that you continue to have the categories on your userpage) suggest that you consider user categories of this type to be valid, and while this discussion is not about you, the fact that you initiated it makes your position on user categories relevant.
   3. See my first point. Also, where exactly does WP:USER say anything about user categories? All it says it that user pages should not be placed in categories that contain articles. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This guideline was not advertised at VPP for discussion, it was announced as being marked as a guideline by a bot. This has never been through the guideline approval process. The CfD discussion you reference all were backed by this text by the same people who wrote it - a process that has been incredibly divisive and controversial. That resulted in a user category of users who think CfD is broken. Saying there is consensus here is not backed by evidence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yes, it was announced as being marked as a guideline so that anyone who objected would have the opportunity to voice their objections. Advertising is advertising, whether it's done by a bot, a human, or some higher power. There was no need to undergo some bureaucratic "approval process" because the guideline's text was taken verbatim from an existing guideline. The fact is that this guideline was announced at VPP and no one contested it, it was added to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and no one contested it, and then (naturally) it started being used in CfD discussions.

I don't really understand your comment about "the same people who wrote it" ... your complaint seems to be about the fact that people who work with category-related guidelines also tend to participate in category-related discussions, and vice versa. Nonetheless, it is patently inaccurate: many editors initiated, initiate, participated, and participate in user category discussions who did not directly edit this guideline (however, their participation in user category discussions shaped its content, as it should), and you should be well aware of that, considering the fact that you were involved in at least one such discussion (Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Stumbled here from AN or thereabouts. Was mildly surprised to find my own name as the first entry on the talk page, but I guess I do like the sound of my own voice. I still stand by what i wrote up there, I agree with what DGG has said on this page, but I also agree with Black Falcon. Asserting that the page was created with the guideline tag on it is a view which is interested only in pushing a point rather than reflecting a fact. The fact of the matter is that the page was split from another guideline, therefore it remained a guideline after that split. Do we question the legitimacy of our oldest policies because they were moved from article namespace to project namespace? We are not a bureaucracy, we are an encyclopedia and a community which builds it. If you want to dispute the current status of the page, feel free, it's not hard, I tend to do it myself at least twice a year here or there. But there's no point disputing an historical version of the page, because of the way consensus works on Wikipedia. I hope that helps somewhat. Hiding T 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, thank you for commeting.

I wonder to what extent, if any, the course of user category discussions changed following the merging of UCfD back into CfD... If the same types of categories that were deleted before by a consensus at UCfD are still being deleted now, then that would suggest to me that there is de facto consensus for the guideline in its current form (that's not to suggest, of course, that it cannot or should not be modified if there is consensus to do so). If categories that were being deleted before no longer receive consensus support for deletion, then that may suggest that the guideline may need to be made more or less stringent.

I have not been tracking the outcomes of user category discussions at CfD (I've been on break for several months since April), so I have no idea what the results will be. However, given that guidelines are supposed to reflect common, consensus-driven practice, I think that this would be a fair test of sorts. Any thoughts? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest tracking DRV as well, although I'm not sure there's that many instances there, but tallying those will also give an indication of consensus, for example if the majority are endorsed then that strengthens the original close. But it's no good asking me about past cfd's. Everyone knows I only pop up there when I get a bee in my bonnet about something. ;) Hiding T 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Once I've finished with the UCfD and CfD archives, I'll check the DRV archives for any user category discussions. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've finished, so here are some statistics regarding user category discussions at CfD from April, when UCfD was merged back into CfD, through November of this year (please note that I've counted only discussions which appeared to have relevance to consensus regarding deletion or retention of particular types of user categories, so I have excluded most discussions involving renaming and/or speedy deletion):

General statistics: Of 87 user category discussions (an average of 11 per month), 71 ended as "delete", 3 as "delete per CSD G7" after some useful discussion, 3 as "merge" (for categories, this is equivalent to deleting), 7 as "keep", 1 as what amounted to "keep but rescope", and 2 as "no consensus". So, just under 90% of discussions ended with a consensus to not retain the category and 9% ended with a consensus to keep the category in some form.

Analysis: While one cannot conclude from these numbers that there is consensus to keep or retain particular types of categories, one can conclude that there is consensus to delete certain user categories and, consequently, that the 'keep all user categories' position advanced by a small minority of editors is not consensus-supported. For the most part, those types of categories that were being deleted at UCfD are still being deleted at CfD and those that were being kept at UCfD are still being kept at CfD.

Deletion review: Of the 87 discussions, two were brought to deletion review (1, 2) and closed as "relist". Subsequently, the original "delete" closures were confirmed in both cases. This translates to a 2% raw "challenge rate" and a 0% "overturn rate".

Analysis: The high challenge rate (yes, 2% is high for category discussions) is most likely just an artifact of the low number of total nominations. During the period April 2008 to March 2009, which saw several hundred user category discussions, only four outcomes were challenged at deletion review (3 "delete" outcomes were endorsed, and 1 incorrect "rename" outcome from 2006 was overturned). Also, one of the DRVs

Participation: I did not keep track of the number of participants in user category discussions, but I did not see anything outside the norm for CfD: discussions of controversial categories involved multiple editors and discussions of uncontroversial ones involved only a few. However, there was participation from many editors who neither had any direct involvement in writing this guideline nor were "regulars" at UCfD. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

• Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories

Merge discussion is actually at the link above. - jc37 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mixing user and content categories

I propose clarifying the third bullet point of Wikipedia:User categories#Categorization so that it applies not only to userspace pages but also to user categories:

User pages and user categories do not belong in mainspace categories such as Category:Living people or Category:Biologists, which are reserved for articles of the encyclopedia (in mainspace). This applies also to user subpages that are draft versions of articles.

It is my understanding that consensus is and has been that user content (including user pages, user subpages and user categories) and article content (taken broadly to include templates used within article, categories containing articles, and so on) should remain separate. The former is intended for use by editors, the latter by readers. There are a variety of reasons to enforce this separation, not least of which is that user content is almost entirely unchecked and largely exempt from the policies and guidelines that govern article content.

In the interest of full disclosure, it was Template:RCdoc/cit that motivated my proposal. The template has a built-in function that places a user category such as Category:American Wikipedians within Category:American people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, that's already stated at one of the main categorisation policy pages. So it should indeed be reflected here.

And that template needs to be changed asap if it places wikipedian cats in article cats. - jc37 04:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. Seems like pretty obvious, and readily assumed, but just not written in before. User categories do not belong in mainspace, and I'd non-technically consider mainspace categories to be part of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the text of the guideline and also modified the template. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above, this is longstanding practice and common sense to keep user categories and mainspace categories totally separate. VegaDark (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard

• Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard

Currently, category-related discussions tend to be spread out over the talkpages of WP:CFD; WP:CAT, WP:NCCAT; WP:CLS; and elsewhere. Awhile back, it seemed to me that having a category-related noticeboard might be nice, so I cobbled one together. Recently, some helpful person added a notice on WP:CAT about it. So at this point, I welcome others' thoughts on this. What do you think about it, and if positive, how and where do you think we should notify others of its existence? - jc37 06:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Category:Wikipedians and subcategories

See Category_talk:Wikipedians#RfC:_Is_this_category_and_current_subcategories_appropriate_for_Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just what is the standing of this page?

I've still not managed to work out the history of why user categories are controlled as tightly as mainspace categories. Looking into this today, I'm left wondering as to what credible standing this page has.

The project page has only four editors with more than one edit, and one of them was adamant that it didn't justify the guideline tage. It has less than 30 watchers.

It is asserted to have been advertised, but if you follow the link to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_42#Wikipedia:User_categories_has_been_marked_as_a_guideline, you'll find the formal ratification is not so impressive (no one said anything).

Looking at a couple of discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27 & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 5, I'd say that it is clear that the "long standing consensus" of WP:USERCAT is at odds with the wider Wikipedian community. There is some talk of a change in consensus (ie WP:CCC), but I'd say that there was never more than a local consensus for the rules for user categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The "credible standing" of this guideline is based on hundreds upon hundreds of discussions whose outcomes have, for the most part, confirmed the principles stated herein. There will be exceptions, of course, and the community consensus may move back and forth over time, but that applies to any guideline; the fact that there are exceptions is, I would argue, one of the key characteristics separating a guideline and a policy.

I don't consider the number of watchers to be a reliable indicator of acceptance; for example, the page was not on my watchlist until today. Perhaps the relatively low number reflects the limited scope of the guideline. WP:USERCAT applies to just 10,000 pages, whereas Wikipedia:Categorization has just over 500 watchers but applies to more than one million pages.

You seem to base your conclusion on a handful of discussions that have overturned past outcomes, but I could point to a hundred other discussions since 2012 that demonstrate that WP:USERCAT reflects the community consensus. It is a feature of category discussions in general that they generally involve only a handful of participants, and it is only natural that consensus in each discussion can be judged only by the opinions of those who weigh in. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_14#Category:Wikipedians_who_edit_Wikipedia

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_14#Category:Wikipedians_who_edit_Wikipedia. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

username

Namaste.... Sir I want change my username

I want my new username> Dinkar Singh Badal

So please help me Thank you. Dinkar70 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. Given that you only have one edit I'd suggest just registering another account under the name you want to use. Someone else has already registered an account under the name of Dinkar Singh Badal though so you may need to choose something else. Hut 8.5 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist entry for "Category:User:" pages

Every so often, some user creates a personal category called "Category:User:Foo" (replace foo with the user's username). I propose blacklisting this patern, with a message along the lines of User:Od Mishehu/cat-user-prefix. Any issues? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Od Mishehu This is a good idea, as such categories are inappropriate. VegaDark (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical overzealous deletion of usercategories

Reviewing Special:WantedCategories, looking through red categories containing "Wikipedians" and with multiple members, and reviewing the associated CfDs, I see groupthink and false consensus effect, and it is almost always led by User:VegaDark

An example is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_by_operating_system. Well obviously, Windows and OS users don't care for being able to network, they are the dominant majority, and they are dominated by people who don't care about operating systems. But Category:Wikipedians who use Linux?!, these people do care, and networking could be valuable to the project. Linux is so much more powerful, versatile, but unintuitive, when you are really trying to do something new, some discussion with someone who might understand can really help.

I also note the redlinks are repopulated by more editors than participated in the deletion discussion. And that the culture of CfD is that none needed notifying. "If they cared they'd have watchlisted the category" - such an absurdity. These points justify overturning the CfD decision.

VegaDark, the current mess is a direct result of your history narrow vision, authoritarianism, and groupthinking colleagues. Will you help fix this by now agreeing to bluelink categories that enable mutual support among editors? Support for editors directly benefits the editors, and editors matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• The example you cite was brought to deletion review and endorsed already. I still stand by the reasoning behind that 100%. And, I might add, I've always abided by consensus and done things by the book. To try and claim there's any authoritarianism going on here is ridiculous. You can try to claim "false consensus" if you would like, but it stands to reason that a lot of people who care about user categories have added their views and many of them have come to the same conclusion. I'm curious what you would have had the closing admins do other than make the decisions they made when closing discussions based on those who participated. I'm just persuasive with my rationale to to the point of getting results - lots of positive results, in my view. On the contrary, If I had conclusive proof (unsure how we would get peer reviewed scientific research on this issue, however) that Wikipedia was genuinely improved from a wild west user category atmosphere, I'd be all for it - the bottom line should be improvement of the encyclopedia. And frankly I strongly disagree that allowing so many unencyclopedic user categories fosters the sort of atmosphere that tells me we are here to build an encyclopedia instead of proclaiming ourselves to be members of various joke categories. As to your example, I wholeheartedly support creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Linux for those users to collaborate together. Why must we categorize those who use Linux? These types of categories are generally linked to userboxes, which some users place on their userpage like it was their job. I'd argue the vast majority of users who were in that category prior to deletion probably would have no interest in actually collaborating on improving content - this is based off of years of dealing with user categories. If the ultimate goal for users is to collaborate, why do we have to create "who use", "who like", "who watch", etc. categories instead of just cutting to the chase and creating a category named as collaboration-oriented as possible? Here's some food for thought - if we brought back the Linux category, and I created the redlinked category I proposed, what do you think consensus would be on a merge nomination from the "who use" category to the "collaborate on topics" category? At this point we would be throwing out any sort of idea that the first was meant for collaboration from those arguing to keep it around, no? VegaDark (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you are wrong. But if I am not convincing anyone, then I might have to support BHG's position. Give up on user category freedom, have all redlinks removed. Perhaps try templated userbox "What links here" to network for project related purposes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I miss User:Ned Scott. His approach appeals to me. Working "willing to help" into these categories still might be a good idea. I do admit that most of the categories were frivolous and the of the few with potential, most members were probably not in them to be offering to provide help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem is that many users take user categories far too literal. "Oh, I'm interested in that topic, personally. But actually help edit articles related to that? No thanks." I would suggest that it actually impedes collaboration when some users are collaboration-oriented while others simply saw the category, said, "That applies to me!" and added it to their page (usually by way of a userbox, with a category attached to it), without any thoughts towards actually improving content related to that category. Making category names as collaboration oriented as possible eliminates, or at least significantly reduces this issue and, in my view, makes it far more inviting to actually seek out someone in the category with the reasonable expectation that they would be amenable to working with you on something. VegaDark (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I would oppose a merge from people who like/use something to the more specific "interest in collaborating". The latter may well be a subset of the former but, for most people, having the time and interest to edit articles on a topic will come and go, while liking/using will be a longer-term attribute. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • And you've proven my point perfectly. If said users are not interested in actually improving the encyclopedia by being in an "interested in" or "who like" category, then why, when categories are supposed to be for the improvement of the encyclopedia, are we keeping them around? VegaDark (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm buying it. Category:Wikipedian photographers may include Category:Wikipedians who take photographs for article on request, but will include too many just saying, but not willing to help. Category:Wikipedians willing to help would have to be opt in only. This categories could be helpful if finely divided, eg Category:Wikipedians willing to take photos in Rome. For broad offers, a notice board might be much better. Should this sort of sentiment be added to the guideline? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
            • I'm open to deleting the categories for using/liking. What I opposed was merging their members into a category with more limited scope. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
              • Fair enough, I can see many merged wouldn't remove themselves even if it no longer applied to them under the new name. VegaDark (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User Categories need parent pages

Ideally, all categories have a parent page. I think this should be true for User Categories.

Looking at special:WantedCategories, there is a lot of weird looking stuff. On investigation, a lot have some plausible (though probably not justified) purpose behind them, but it is far from obvious.

Many of the weird-looking wanted categories are populated by templates. I suspect that these represent the bulk of unintentional red-linked memberships.

I suggest, that if a User Category is justified, then it is reasonable to expect a ProjectSpace page, or WikiProject page, to explain the purpose of the category, and to serve as the category parent page. Should be be decided that the category is unsuitable, or not serving the purpose, the parent page would then serve as a suitable location for "Listify and Delete" actions at CfD. "Listify and Delete" I think is far far more palatable to users who feel oppressed by a star chamber autocratic clique simply deleting their network. It aligns with the agreed observation that the more useful user categories would be better suited as noticeboards/membership lists. Unlike categories, watchlisting of the noticeboards/membership list is natural, and members can easily add notes about themselves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• This seems reasonable. And, a notice could be left on the Wikiproject page for any user categories nominated for deletion that the Wikiproject justifies, which would help satisfy your notification issues. VegaDark (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and yes. I see you fixed the User pig category before I was able to work out how it was being populated. My tentative steps to fixing utter-nonsense categories I find is thwarted by redlinked categories caused by userbox templates with a category parameter. Could we fix the template caused redlink categories first? They appear to be tha majority, and to have been created non-deliberately, just by filling in default parameters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• There are also a lot of red categories which appear to be generated by new users experimenting - people who never actually created an article.Rathfelder (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  There are but I hadn't noticed they were dominating. Are they ongoing, or just so many because they include every test every made? I can't think of a systematic/root cause fix for them. I don't think non-contributors need particular care/politeness, and think a bot should remove non-contributors redlinked-self-categorisations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

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.

---

There are currently several discussions (1, 2, 3, 4) ongoing as to whether Wikipedians should be allowed to keep redlinked user categories on their user (and user talk) pages. This was prompted by User:Rathfelder creating numerous categories that were previously redlinked, and placing them in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. All of the categories created in this manner that have been brought to CfD thus far have been deleted (for violating this guideline) since the vast majority of them are some form of joke category. Rathfelder's rationale behind this action was that he is working on redlink cleanup, and that these categories remaining as redlinks are impeding that process: see reports such as Special:WantedCategories, with a large number of previously deleted user categories. It has been suggested in a series of early IAR CfD closures that this issue needs a centralized RfC to determine what our course of action should be on this issue.

Currently, the status quo is that anything violating WP:USERCAT will be deleted at CfD, and sometimes the categories are emptied when such a CfD closes. In my experience administrators closing such discussions are not always familiar with user categories and often follow the process as they would any other CfD and empty them. Other times, the category is deleted and all users remain. There has never been an official policy ruling on this - the idea, I suppose, is that the categories being deleted alone is sufficiently within policy, while users are not required to remove themselves from the category per our much more lax guidelines in the userspace. This has mostly worked out up until now - Rathfelder was recently blocked for removing a redlinked category from a user page, while in the past users have been threatened with a block (and ultimately their page protected from editing) for re-adding themselves to user categories (a bit different from the issue at hand as that was a container category, but I would submit is still similar).

I should note that, as with any category, it being red-linked alone is not really the concern here. For instance, if there were a redlink on a user's page titled Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Oregon State University (Something I've been thinking about creating and placing myself in recently), that category would not violate this guideline as it would be likely to help foster collaboration - the best way to deal with this would be to actually create the category. The main concern here is a user placing one's self in a category that's already been determined by consensus at CfD that the category is not helpful to the project - For instance, all the users in Category:Wikipedians who oppose censorship remaining in the category after a CfD resulting in delete.

It appears that we have come to the point where we need some guidance as to the community's thoughts on this issue. In my view, there are four schools of thought on this:

1. "Redlinks on userspace pages for categories that have previously been deleted are disruptive to encyclopedia building because they hinder those working on redlink cleanup, and we should empty these categories at the conclusion of CfDs and continue to remove userspace pages from them if they are added. Any user violating consensus by re-adding such categories should be warned, and, if necessary, have their userpage protected from editing."
2. "Redlinks on userspace pages for categories that have previously been deleted are disruptive to encyclopedia building because they hinder those working on redlink cleanup, but punishing users for re-adding these categories is going too far. It should be standard practice to remove users from these categories at the conclusion of a CfD, and perhaps periodically purge such categories, but there should be no repercussions for users who want to re-add the category to their page."
3. "We should more or less maintain the status quo - Anytime a CfD for a user category is closed, it will not be emptied. Redlinks at the bottom of their userspace pages are not disruptive to the project."
4. "I disagree with the central reasoning that these types of categories should not exist in the first place. We should get rid of the redlinks by making them blue and modify WP:USERCAT to allow for as much leeway as userspace content traditionally has. User categories should not need to directly benefit the encyclopedia as a precondition for existing."

Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2, 1, NOT 4 - Personally I sympathize with Rathfelder, in that I too have done redlink cleanup and been very annoyed by the large number of user categories that show up. I don't agree with his solution - turning them blue and throwing WP:USERCAT into the wind, but having been part of the process of making user categories more encyclopedic for over a decade now, I know how much drama this issue has the possibility of creating. I believe 2 is a compromise position - the users who specifically re-add themselves to previously deleted user categories after an initial emptying will likely be few and far between, and should have a minimal impact on redlink cleanup reports. Furthermore, I would recommend a bot go through and clear out userpages in redlinked categories that have a history of deletion citing anything other than C1 as their deletion reasoning, ideally every 3-4 months to help out those doing redlink cleanup. This solution seems to result in the most number of people happy - redlink impact would be minimal while those who add such links to their userpage will be able to continue to do so (and can mark their page for bots to ignore it if they don't want them removed). Furthermore, I will say that leaving users in redlinked categories has, in my experience, made it far more likely that a category will be re-created against consensus. One only need look through my deletion log and search for "G4" to find numerous re-creations of previously deleted content. In my view maintaining the status quo creates more administrative work in this regard. VegaDark (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am quite happy with a compromise solution. But I would like the policy made clearer. I was blocked for doing what I thought I was supposed to do. There are clearly a small number of editors who get very excited about this issue. But a much larger number who don't. I think my Idiosyncratic category has actually helped, rather to my surprise. I don't object to people who want to make jokes. And as far as interfering with the redlink cleanup - categories that start "Wikipedians ..." are not really a problem, because it's easy to see what is going on. It's the others - like {{:Category:Valyarin Wicipedyanar]], for example. Most of those, as best I can judge, are created by accident. So some sort of automated trawl would probably work quite well with them.Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've discovered that this debate is very long running. See comments from 2006 at Wikipedia talk:Special:WantedCategories.Rathfelder (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3, and relax WP:USERCAT. The category system is pretty poor, from the design. Few Wikipedians understand them, few poeple use them . Allowing Wikipedians to play with categorisation in userspace has educational benefits. A major, long unfillied request is Wikipedia:Category intersection. In the mean time, what is the point of tight control? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the categorization system that exists right now has design flaws — and yes, there are ways in which it could be made better. But until those alternatives are actually implemented, we're stuck working within the system we've got right now. Category intersection was first proposed a full decade ago — if there's a reason it still hasn't been implemented as of today, that reason is very likely to be that it was found to be not feasible for technical reasons, such as excessively long search times and/or excessive server load to actually generate the intersections, and not that people are just dawdling on a thing that could actually be quick-fixed in three seconds flat. But within the system we've got right now, redlinked user categories are actively kludging a necessary maintenance project in an undesirable and unproductive way. If and when category intersection is actually implemented and the categorization system is radically overhauled as a result, then we can revisit whether that changes the case for option #3 or not — but under the system we have today, option #3 is disrupting the proper functioning and maintenance of the system we have today. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Massive design flaws, and massive technical neglect. But that aside, it sounds more like it is the maintenance that is a kludge. If maintenance assist tools can't work around userspace categories beginning with "Wikipedias who", then it is the incompetence in maintenance that needs attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, not all "userspace" categories have the words "Wikipedians" in them at all — for just a few examples, look at Category:Laptop and Category:Vanity and Category:Templatonian footballers. And for another, there is no technical way to prevent somebody from erroneously adding a userspace category to one or more articlespace pages — and so simply adding a filter to the tool to prevent detection of any category that has the word "Wikipedians" in it would make it virtually impossible to find or correct that error. The only way the interference can be avoided entirely is for redlinked user categories to be depopulated, period. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, all userspace categories should begin with "Wikipedians who", or should contain the word ""Wikipedians". I've seen a number of userrcategories renamed this way, and haven't seen a problem with it. Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites for example. Some userspace categories that have been deleted were defensible, but were deleted due to unrepresentative CfD regulars' biases. Most were just stupid. Not distinguishing between the stupid and the defensible has led to this trouble. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is something we can agree on, including the babel categories. We should have every user category have "Wikipedian" in it. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

VegaDark, this seems too easy. Has it ever been proposed or attempted before. My experience with too-easy proposals is that they turn out to be overly simplistic. Let me know if you want to take this further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in to assist. I assume it would be as simple as getting consensus on this talk page and then changing the user policy for non-babel categories. Since babel categories are so widely used, including those in the policy (which I think it should) would probably generate a lot of discussion. That might deserve its own RfC (also on this page?). I'd also like to go through the entire user category system to see if there are any outliers that this wouldn't work with to make sure the proposed wording wouldn't have any issues. VegaDark (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"and so simply adding a filter to the tool to prevent detection of any category that has the word "Wikipedians" in it would make it virtually impossible to find or correct that error" Sorry, I don't understand this. Is it important? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"The only way the interference can be avoided entirely is for redlinked user categories to be depopulated, period"? Such bald faced absolutism? Acceptable usercategories can be bluelinked. With a relaxation of USERCAT restrictions, there is no need to protest with user-redlinked categories, and then we can be rid of redlinked categories.

• On reflection, definitely 4. While 3 should be an option, and technical problems solved technically, 4 is a better solution immediately implementable. I note that the whole problem, especially protest categories, are a direct consequence of an overly titght set of restrictions on usercategories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• NOT 1 or 4, prefer 3, could live with 2. For things that don't really matter all that much, the status quo is often best. Option 2 wouldn't bother me, but it would bother people who don't know about NOBOTS, and likely lead to pointless arguments every few months if you're really going to periodically clear them out by bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Arguably the bot's edit summary could include something like "Don't want me bothering your page again? Add {{NOBOTS}}" to address that. VegaDark (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think your options, unfortunately, don't provide enough nuance to account for the different varieties of potentially-deletable usercats. A red-linked joke category is relatively harmless, and can remain without hurting much. A deleted usercat that was disruptive, on the other hand, should be emptied as soon as the discussion is closed. - Eureka Lott 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Eureka Lott Feel free to add your own. I think it adds a level of subjectiveness to force a closing admin to determine what is disruptive or not, however. That could pose more problems than it solves. Perhaps "Users should only be removed from redlinked categories if the redlinked category would meet speedy deletion criteria G1, G3, G5, G6, G9, G10, or G11"? I think that would be equivalent to a "2.5" and would be an improvement from the status quo, IMO. VegaDark (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  The deleted disruptive usercat recreation should be treated as WP:Disruption, remedied with caution, warning and blocking, not treated as a CfD maintenance issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  The speedy deletion criteria would help in some instances, but don't always apply to disruptive user categories. WP:USERCAT#DIVISIVE has a couple of good examples. If similar categories were created today, they'd have to go through CFD, not speedy deletion. - Eureka Lott 21:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• For now I sympathize the most with option 3 or else option 2 as it causes the least annoyance among editors about interference in their own user space. However before making a final call it is important to know how much hindrance these categories really cause for maintenance. Is it perhaps too naïeve of me to think that while cleaning up redlinked categories you can just skip and ignore user categories? @VegaDark and Rathfelder: Are you willing to clarify this further? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• There are many thousands of red categories. I don't want to spend a long term trying to work out what the score is with something which is actually a joke, which is why I think its better for the categories to be created rather than to be left as red links. It's much less of a problem if it is clear from the red link that it relates to a user page, because all that appears in the category list is the redlink. I can happily ignore everything which starts "Wikipedians who ...", but it is not so obvious what Category:Fictional editors is. I favour a periodical purge, because quite apart from the jokes there are many hundreds more red links on user pages which, as far as I can tell, are mistakes made by new editors on user pages which have been abandoned. But I am not in favour of sanctions against editors who are very attached to their red links Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm suddenly realizing now that I misread option 3. Maintaining the status quo would mean something different for me. Let's call this option 5 then. It means we don't actively turn redlinked user categories to bluelinked user categories for maintenance purposes, in order to avoid flooding CfD with them. It should only be CfD'd when a user who has the category tag on the user page decides to make it a bluelinked category. If someone else than a user him/herself did this, the category should be reverted to a redlinked category without further discussion. This is most in line with the recent speedy closures of User:BrownHairedGirl. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Propose new Option 0: similar to 1 or 2, but with modification. I speedy-closed the CFDs because CFD was becoming flooded with multiple debates which were all essentially about the same question of principle. Per WP:MULTI, that's a bad way to resolve any issue. Centralised discussion is preferable, so many thanks to VegaDark for starting this RFC.
  I should also note that I have a stake in this issue: I have had two red-linked categories on my userpage for about ten years, created as sarcastic responses to the then proliferation of the sort of user categories which were subsequently purged.
  However, that joke is now really old. It's tired and irrelevant. It's time I removed those red-linked categories, which I will do after this edit. (done)
  I had previously defended these red-linked categories on the grounds that a) humour is good for us all, b) they do no harm, and c) we give editors a fair bit of leeway in constructing their userpages. But I have changed my mind because I now think point B is wrong: these categories do cause harm, by impeding the work of editors such as Rathfelder who are trying eliminate the backlog of redlinked categories.
  That work is crucially important to maintaining the integrity of the category system, and placing obstacles in its way disrupts the maintenance of categories. That harms editors whose time is wasted, and above all it disrupts readers who are deprived of the navigational benefits of working categories. If editors want to create jokes on their userpages, then feel free to write text, add an image, or create/add a userbox -- but sorry, mucking with the category system causes harm which makes your joke unfunny.
  For me, that's the crucial point here. A joke ceases to be a joke when it disproportionately amplified or disrupts things which actually matter. The witticism which may be appropriate as an aside to a co-worker or family member becomes disruptive when shouted out at a team meeting or a family gathering. This is a sort of WP:JERK issue, and those editors (like me) who created these red-linked categories have been unaware that they have been a bit of a jerk.
  I don't think that Rathfelder's creation of all these pointless categories was a good idea, but I do want to congratulate Rathfelder for identifying a real problem and bringing it to a head. I'd prefer that they had chosen another method of doing so, such an opening an RFC, but the intention was good. So let's take the opportunity to actually resolve the underlying problem -- which is that redlinked user categories are disruptive
  So I propose Option 0: Red-linked categories on userpages should be removed, because they disrupt the category system by impeding the work of editors who maintain categories by eliminating redlinks. Editors who want to signal their views, interests or jokes in ways which do not comply with WP:USERCAT should use userboxes, text or images on their userapage, but not red-linked categories. Any editor may remove a red-linked category from a userpage, just as they can do when userpages are categorised in mainspace categories. Editors who repeatedly add red-linked categories to their userpages may be subject to escalating warnings in the usual way. As with any other form of disruptive editing, editors who persist in this disruptive conduct despite warnings may face sanctions.
  Obviously, that leaves open the possibility that a redlinked category may be restored and turned blue (either by the owner of the userpage or by another editor), in which case the merits of the category can be considered in the usual ways: CFD, or speedy deletion in some cases. (The speedy criteria which might apply include WP:G1 for patent nonsense such as this one of mine, WP:G2 for tests (e.g. "zxcvbnmmasdfghjkli"), WP:G3 for vandalism or hoaxes, WP;G4 for re-creations after CFD, WP:G10 for attack categories (e.g. "Wikipedians who think X is a scumbag") etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If the category system has such integrity, why is it so much effort to maintain it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: Because Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and the huge volume of constant changes needs to be monitored to ensure that they work. Like eveything else on en.wp, categories are far from perfect ... but ongoing maintenance ensures that they don't degrade as changes are made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For the same reasons as everything else in Wikipedia, including actual articles, require effort to maintain them. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, lots of things get created on here that genuinely should not be kept — which means that maintaining Wikipedia's integrity does depend on cleaning that stuff up when it happens. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
      • No BHG, Bearcat, it is because the category system doesn't work as required. You are supporting a sandcastle in the rain. Articles require nowhere near this amount of effort to maintain, every Wikipedian understands article maintenance. MOS issues are not maintenance. The category system needs attention, and many of the red linked categories are repopulated in protest. A draconian authoritarian response to the protest against overenthusiastic usercat deletionism is not a healthy response. Category:Neutral good Wikipedians, for example, was a quiet network of similarly thinking people, until it was deleted by arrogant ignorance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Articles require far more effort to maintain than you seem to think they do; MOS is not the only kind of maintenance that articles actually have to undergo: content disputes, NPOV issues, the creation of outright hoaxes, the perennial problem of people confusing Wikipedia with a free PR database where they're entitled to post their own résumés, are just some examples of the many other problems that result in article maintenance taking up a lot more editor time and energy, on the whole, than category maintenance actually does. Just as an example, AFD is having a good day if the number of articles listed for deletion is below 100; CFD is having a bad day if the number of categories for deletion exceeds 10. And even the tag-based category intersection system you favour would still require maintenance — there would still be the issue of people adding articlespace category tags to userspace pages, there would still be the issue of the creation of unwanted category tags such as for hair colour or eye colour, there would still be spelling errors to fix (e.g. somebody tagging 24 Sussex Drive as "Ottowa" instead of "Ottawa"), there would still be the disruptive application of category tags to articles that don't belong in those categories (e.g. Justin Bieber getting the "LGBT" tag), and on and so forth. The system would not be maintenance-free; it would just change how the maintenance processes are structured. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, Option 0 differs from option 1 solely in the fact that it gives editors permission to remove redlinked categories from a userspace page, even if the category has never gone through the CfD process? (whereas option 1 would only allow removal of categories that have been discussed), correct? VegaDark (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • • • • Bearcat, I did think I needed to clarify that when writing it, I must have been rushed. Existing articles are fairly self-maintaining. I watchlist a great many articles, and problem edits are very infrequent. I meant to exclude new articles, which you mention. My solution to that would be to prevent new article creation until the user is autoconfirmed (Wikipedia:ACTRIAL). Most of the remaining challenges are due to NPOV disputes. As previously posted, I am warming to the idea of removing all redlinks, on condition of more tolerance of bluelinked usercategories. Only a small proportion of userspace redlinked categories would be suitable for bluelinking, but some definitely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support removing userpages from redlinked user categories as things currently stand; qualified support for option #3 if there can be a programming change to reduce their disruptiveness. Leaving users in redlinked user categories actively interferes with an important ongoing maintenance project, namely by cluttering up Special:WantedCategories with kludge that can never be cleaned up or created. And it's not helpful to just say "the people working on that project should just ignore the user categories and concentrate on the article cats", either: the wanted-categories report only picks up 5,000 redlinked categories, while anything from 5,001 on remains hidden until such time as it's dropped below #5,000 — and the backlog is packed right up to and past the 5,000 cutoff, which means the user-category kludge is actually causing mainspace categories to not get detected, and so "just work around them" is not the answer.
  So if, and only if, the redlinked-category tools are reprogrammed to exclude userspace categories from appearing as "wanted categories" at all and their existence is no longer disrupting an important maintenance task, then I'd be willing to support option #3. But if that isn't and/or can't be done (e.g. it may very well be functionally impossible to program the server to distinguish a redlinked category that's intended for userspace from one that's intended for mainspace — frex, redlinked user categories don't always actually contain the word "Wikipedians"), then the policy has to be some form of removal, because the people working on that project should not be forced to put up with unresolvable kludge in their project queue. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• This discussion basically involves a trade-off between different stakeholders and interests:

A) editors who want to keep their relative freedom in their own user space;

B) editors working in maintenance like User:Rathfelder;

C) the integrity of the (visible) category tree;

D) avoiding that CfD gets flooded by user categories.

Initially I was hoping that the maintenance aspect (#B) would be less of a problem, I wasn't sure however, and with the recent comments it seems like that this should on the contrary have a high weight. That reduces the solution space to only the two most extreme solutions, #1 (or #0) and #4, despite the fact many of us don't want to make a choice for an extreme solution (see many votes for #2 and #3 in the early phase of the discussion). If we have to choose this way, I would actually want to reconsider #4 as opted by Rathfelder. Option 4 is obviously better than option 1 with respect to interests A and D, it is neutral with respect to interest B, and if maintenance people keep the nonsense categories separate in the tree (as Rathfelder did), then it is not a problem to interest C either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Option 4 would be a slap in the face for stakeholder E) People who are here to build an improve an encyclopedia, want to reinforce that Wikipedia is not a social network, and want to maintain a semblance of value towards that end for the user category system. VegaDark (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Category:Idiosyncratic_Wikipedians currently contains subcats with only one or two users (with one exception containing 3 users). That doesn't sound like social networking. We can also add a rule if the number of users in such a category becomes 5 or more (i.e. if there is a real suspicion of social networking) that the categories may be nominated for deletion after all (we might expand speedy deletion criteria for this purpose). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Editor networking via categories is long since hampered by the intolerance of the CfD clique. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• So? Do you agree or disagree with the view that this is not a case of social networking? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • I'm not really sure, but I don't think there is much project-unrelated networking. There looks to be a lot of random stuff, always has been, and genuine good-faith, even if I'll-considered, attempts at project-related networking gets caught up with it. Think the solution is to be more tolerant of user categories and leave them bluelinked, unless and until it is agreed that they are actually divisive, or for some external non-project purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks I like your description of this being "random stuff", implying it's neither project related nor social network related, it's just without purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Option 1. If we delete a category, then it should remain empty. Creating it as a redlinked category may be as bad as creating it as a blue-linked category, withtthe additional disadvantage that it hinders dealing with other red-linked categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• • I don't think we are hearing the voice of those who might defend the current policy like User:John Carter, Anthony Bradbury, Sitush, Bbb23, LadyofShalott, Drmies, pablo, Roxy the dog™. Ottawahitech, Jeh and Good Ol’factory may also have something to say Rathfelder 12:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Whoever did this, I understand that pinging doesn't work if you don't sign the post with four tildas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It was User:Rathfelder. While normally this would probably be disapproved as canvassing, in this case I also have the feeling that participation in the discussion so far is a bit skewed and needs more balance. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
        • sorry. And I am actually canvassing people who I suspect don't agree with me. Rathfelder 12:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
          • As documented at Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events, the post containing the userpage links itself must be signed. I.e. User:John Carter, Anthony Bradbury, Sitush, Bbb23, LadyofShalott, Drmies, pablo, Roxy the dog™. Ottawahitech, Jeh and Good Ol’factory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • So if we are pinging specific users, is there any objection to me pinging some who I think would be interested in this RfC? Normally I'd be against this, but the damage is already done, and I feel it's a bit one sided to be pinging users who you believe "will balance out the debate" from the direction it was heading without canvassing. Users I would be interested in pinging are (I won't link them for now): User:Black Falcon (one of the most prolific users dealing with user categories in Wikipedia history), User:Mike Selinker, User:^demon, User:After Midnight, User:MZMcBride, User:Horologium, Kbdank71, User:MER-C, User:CBM (all substantial past UCFD participation), User:K.e.coffman, User:The Rambling Man, User:Peterkingiron, User:Carlossuarez46 (all 4 with recent user category discussion participation). And no, I don't know how any of them feel on this specific issue - as far as I know this has barely been discussed before. VegaDark (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • No objection. All of those editors are logical contributors. Ping them all. Except maybe Kdbank71 Kbdank71, I don't believe he likes notifications. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'll link them, except Kdbank71. VegaDark (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
          • But if you did, it would be User:Kbdank71. I suspect Kris is on an extended skiing holiday anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope, not even remotely interested 😂 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3. It seems to to be the solution which creates problems for the fewest people. I'd happily support a tech change to make things easier on those who have problems at Special:WantedCategories. I think we should seriously consider relaxing WP:USERCAT somewhat. A wiki is supposed to be free form, after all. We should probably encourage people to include "Wikipedians" in any user category, but I'd also support a software change to mark user categories somehow. I wouldn't be opposed to some version of 2, provided there was an opt-out (i.e. bot exclusion, marked in edit summary and preferably talk page message). 1 seems to desert everything we stand for as an open community. Tamwin (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 0. As someone who has had an on-and-off relationship with Special:WantedCategories, I often feel unmotivated, if not right-out discouraged to bother with the red-linked categories backlog when I know I'll be needing to delve into a sea of nonsense that I feel I can do nothing about. I can't empty the deleted user categories because someone will have a fit; I can't (and won't) create them because they don't facilitate the collaboration on or to the benefit of the project. All that does is encourage me to walk away and leave the backlog to continue to rot, instead of cutting it down. It's time to give this silliness a rest and not impede on the work of other Wikipedians who actually want to put the effort in. — ξ^xplicit 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Vote #3 or #2 and NOT 1 or 4 – because they are too strong restricting light jokes. While I can undertstand that it is annoying for Cat-cleanups, I suggest this can somehow be made technically easier, because non-existent "red" cats are only allowed on user/talk pages (see also 2 sections below). Also "Redlinks on userspace pages for categories" is a bit of an unlucky wording, because it addresses red links, not the categorization in the first place, so it would even forbid to put Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page as a link on your userpage. --.js 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2 as a very strong first option, then 1. Special:WantedCategories shouldn't be polluted by red linked user categories, but punishing editors for having red linked user categories goes farther than is necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• FWIW, I had already seen this discussion before the ping. I try to stay away from cat discussions because the entire system is flawed and it is an area that is generally controlled by obsessive types whom I simply can't understand and who seem to enjoy fiddling back and forth with specious wording day in, day out. If I had my way, I'd try to find a replacement for the entire system. That said, I don't see what harm comes from redlinked usercats. If people find them irritating then go do something else, just as I generally do when it comes to cat discussions. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The harm that comes from redlinked user categories is that they actively interfere with the proper functioning of the project to clean up the backlog of redlinked article categories; as I noted above, Special:WantedCategories only has the ability to detect 5,000 redlinked categories and then just stops — which means that if the 5,000 limit is getting cluttered up by redlinked user categories, then article categories that do need to get detected and dealt with aren't, because the large number of user categories in the list is crowding them out. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it not possible for Special:WantedCategories to search specific namespaces?  pablo 15:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User categories aren't a different namespace from article categories — they're all in the Category: namespace. I suppose, in theory, the creation of a new "user category" namespace, and the migration to it of all user categories whether bluelinked or redlinked, would be another potential solution to this issue — and then user category rules could be revisited since they'd be playing in their own separate sandbox and wouldn't be getting muddled with mainspace categories or interfering with mainspace maintenance anymore — but I'm not familiar enough with the programming side to know if that could be done easily or not. I am sure that it's possible, as we have seen the creation and introduction of new namespaces that didn't previously exist, though I know nothing of how much work it takes — but I've posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to ask if anybody could clarify how easy or complicated it might be to move forward with that. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I was notified of this discussion from the outset. Sitush makes points in a way designed to be civil and non pointy. I just want the outcome here to really really annoy Rathfelder. Roxy the dog. bark 13:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to find a solution that does not annoy Roxy the dog.. Rathfelder 16:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Touche. Roxy the dog. bark 18:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Just to add to the comment by User:Sitush: I try to avoid participating in anything category-related. I feel it is a waste of time:
    • The same discussions go on and on, no true consensus is reached, and little gets documented for the next generation of participants
    • The above is viewed as a a good thing by the small clique who basically wp:owns the category space, who then make decisions with no one opposing
    • Some members of the clique are proud to tell others that they do not notify editors of discussions
    • editors who are not part of the clique are sometimes ganged up on and banned, supposedly by consensus Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me
• I suppose I'm with Ottawahitech in that I think these are a waste of time. I'm a proud member of four redlinked categories, none of which are really a joke--even "Wikipedian sex workers" isn't really funny, or not really intended to be funny, and I'm sad to see that these days Jaguar and I are the only ones listed. Have the Wikipedian sex workers gone underground? Is it more an unpaid volunteering effort these days, like so much of our work? Anyway, I don't see the big deal, I don't understand what there is to clean up, I don't understand why we're tinkering with categories (an imperfect system if only because reality isn't categorized so easily). We're a collaborative project where we should find ways to get along. This technocratic thinking does not do that. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"What there is to clean up" is the hundreds upon hundreds of redlinked user categories that are permanently cluttering up Special:WantedCategories, in turn preventing the proper detection and resolution of articlespace categories because that queue has a size limit on it. Whatever solution is implemented here, it has to get user categories off Special:WantedCategories from now on, so "just do nothing" is not an option. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Bearcat, but "doing nothing" is a perfectly fine option with me. I envision a society where all people get along and have affordable health care, and where not everything has to be centralized--a world in which Wikipedia editors have Wikipedia editor friends with slightly different skill sets who help each other out. For instance, my good friend LadyofShalott frequently makes categories for me, or categorizes things for me, in articles I write. But my Wikipedia is partly a pipe dream. And "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian" carries much meaning, for instance--meaning which you or others may not be aware of, and that's fine. We're a big tent. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You're entirely missing the point of what I said. The problem here was, is and continues to be that redlinked user categories are cluttering up and interfering with the proper functioning of the tools that exist to deal with the important maintenance issue of redlinked article categories. If there were a way to segregate user categories into a separate namespace, so that the "redlinked category" tools could be reprogrammed to simply ignore them, then "do nothing" would be a perfectly acceptable option — but until that actually happens, "do nothing" just means "tough titties, the people who work with that maintenance queue just have to live with having it cluttered up by uncreatable and unremovable categories". But that's not acceptable: something has to be done which enables redlinked user categories to be cleared from the redlinked article categories queue. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Probably option 3, except for disruptive categories. (Category:Nazi Wikipedians, which I certainly hope is red and empty.) For one thing, I don't see why a red category Category:Fooian Wikipedians is better or worse than one containing the text "Fooian Wikipedians" with no links. (If you check, you'll see I recently nominated a real category for deletion for being non-defining, but also having no description.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, redlinked user categories get detected by the redlinked category tools — which means that they are disruptive to the project, because they're actively interfering with a necessary maintenance tool. Any solution that gets userpage categories entirely and permanently off of Special:WantedCategories would be fine — but no solution that fails to do that is acceptable at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to prove a point to myself, I have just visited Special:WantedCategories and sorted out perhaps 50-60 of the redlinks. While there are user cats in there, the number of redlinked sock cats looks just as high, and despite both of them there are plenty of other cats visible and fixable. I'm sure at some point in the distant future there might be 5000 user cats at the head of the list but it is nothing like that at the moment. Presumably I am missing something here? - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You clearly scanned only a portion of the list, not the whole thing, because there are far more of them than you seem to think — especially later in the list when the number of entries per category is actually down to two or one rather than the beginning where it's in the 20s and 30s — and as I've already noted more than once above, not all user categories even necessarily have the word "Wikipedians" in them at all, so even for the portion that you did look at you almost certainly saw more than you think you did. And the correct number of user categories on that list is and remains zero, and there can be no solution to this problem which amounts to "tough beans, just work around them and live with it" — the solution has to find a way to get the number down to zero. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem here is with the 'Tool'. Fix the tool and stop bothering wikipedians. Roxy the dog. bark 22:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I went through to 4500-5000 and started there, randomly working backwards. Nor did I base it on having "Wikipedians" at the start - indeed, I clicked on some that were user cats and did not. Give me some credit for not being totally stupid. I don't disagree that some solution may be necessary at some point - I even intimated that above - but this issue does seem like an obsessive's paradise. And I count myself as a mild obsessive, eg: I quite often search and replace instances of "passed away" (WP:EUPHEMISM) but I don't make a song and dance out of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The tool is not "fixable" in any way that would prevent user categories from still cluttering it up, because it's not possible make the system able to distinguish a redlinked user category from a redlinked content category. And just for the record, the people who work with the tool are also Wikipedians whose right not to be "bothered" is not one fraction of one iota less than your right not to be "bothered" — so if you think "don't bother wikipedians" was some kind of trump card that ends the need for something to be done about this, then I'm sorry to tell you that it's not. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not just the tool. I don't use the tool. I work from the alphabetical list of categories which gives me a different view, particularly of spelling and punctuation mistakes in applying categories. Rathfelder 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am getting the feeling that the problem here is driven by deletion (converting from blue to red) of categories wanted for some reason, but where the some reason is not valued by the CfD regulars. The fix to this could be:

• Modify Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories so as to:

Replace throughout "Categories" with "User-Categories", to emphasise that rules from usercategories are different to rules for mainspace categories.

• Remove "Categories that are too broadly or vaguely defined",

on the basis that this is subjective, and CfD-ers are not representative enough to judge, and because these categories are completely harmless if bluelinked. Instead, advise their creators on the benefit of more specific, less vaguely, defined categories.

• Remove "Categories that are overly narrow in scope",

as again this is subjective, and CfD regulars are non-representative. And, as usercategories, they are harmless. There probably is benefit, either in educating Wikipedians of the drawbacks of narrowc categories, or in helping provide impetus in demanding tehnical support for dynamic categorisation.

• Change "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position"

to refer only to positions "unrelated to Wikipedia"

• Change "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive"

by deleting "provocative". BRD is provocation. Provocation is a valid technique for engaging apathetic stonewallers.

• Remove "Categories that are jokes/nonsense",

again, subjective. If project related, there is a lot to be learned via jokes, and nonsense, if not WP:CSD#G1, is probably not nonsense.

The result will be a lot more bluelinked usercategories replacing redlinked user categories, solving the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd strongly oppose all those changes, and in fact make the criteria be "User categories must directly benefit the encyclopedia with an obvious usefulness toward grouping such users for collaborative purposes. If a category can be collaborative, it should have the most directly applicable name to accomplish the collaboration. For instance, Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars or Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars should be merged to Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Star Wars to make it clear and unambiguous the intent of the category is to find users specifically for improving the encyclopedia." VegaDark (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• So, you think categories have no role for editors, and you squeeze only harder, damn the consequences? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that if our goal is to build an encyclopedia, we should act like it. People donate their hard earned money for Wikipedia to keep growing and improving. I genuinely think that if the general public saw the state of user categories before the current iteration of WP:USERCAT, or what would become of it after your proposed revisions, it would be very off-putting. It would be like donating to an organization you care about and finding out that some of the money went towards an office party where all they did was get drunk and make an ass out of themselves instead of the donation directly contributing to the organization's mission. I don't think we have to always be 100% improving the encyclopedia at every turn, but the thing is we already allow tremendous leeway in userspace. There's no user category namespace so these categories intermingle with mainspace categories, which to me is unacceptable unless they directly improve the encyclopedia. Even if we had a user category namespace, I would wish it to be centered around improving the encyclopedia, although I would grant it far more leeway than my current position. VegaDark (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. As it is extremely rare that a category should include user (or user talk) pages and article pages, what is needed is a separate type of category which is intended to include user and user talk pages; if a user or user talk page is in a category not in this group, it needs cleanup; if anything other than a user or user talk page is in a category in this group, it needs cleanup. That's a separate issue from red-linked category cleanup, but it's probably more important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, but I don't think that has ever been in doubt. A reader clicking on a visible mainspace category at the bottom of an article should be led to nothing other than other articles or further mainspace categories leading only to other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think I had a reasonable solution way above in the discussion, let me recap this more formally:

I. If editors consistently working to clean up Special:WantedCategories create user category pages based on redlinks at user pages (thus turning these redlinks blue), they should parent the created user category only to Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians.

II. User categories only in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians are not eligible for deletion via CfD (except see IV).

III. If any editor desires to add another parent or remove Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians, they must do so via CfD.

IV. If the number of users in this kind of category is 5 or higher (suggesting the start of social networking), it is eligible for speedy deletion, which includes removing the links from the user pages.

III and IV are additional security measures, they aren't applicable in the current situation but they may become applicable in the future. By and large this addresses all issues mentioned in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• • I think there are many reasonable solutions. Let's look at yours...
    • I. Surely, if I am in the redlinked category Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Oregon State University, and I intend to collaborate the topics, I may turn it blue? I'm not sure what (I) attempts to address, is it to stop pointy reactions to pointy self-referential redlinks? I am not sure, but I think we need a consideration of what existing category redlinks are OK to remain populated, but not OK to bluelink. I just reviewed some CfDs that turned populated usercategories red, 2007 to 2011. A lot were strongly disputed, and many !votes gave no rationale beyond pointing t this guideline, a guideline that I thing desperately needs a {{disputed}} tag.
    • II Why that category? A lot of actually good faith positively intentioned usercategories are not well characterised by "Idiosyncratic", meaning all about an individual, the opposite of networking. Single-member redlink categories I think have the least credibility. A different category name perhaps?
    • III Add another parent? You mean anyone who wants to categorise Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians? I'm not sure I understand.
    • IV Have you already differentiated "social networking" from "networking for project related purposes"? As above, usercategories are for networking, whether networking members together, or providing a network of editors avail to help in specific tasks?

I suspect I am nearly entirely confused. What problems are you seeking to solve? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• It may be helpful to read my contribution of 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC) and the follow-up discussion with User:VegaDark to see what problems it solves. Then your questions:

Question re I. It only applies when you are consistently working on cleaning up Special:WantedCategories, that is an important restriction.

Question re II. Fair enough to rename Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. It should be clear that it's a maintenance category anyway.

Question re III. Not Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians but a created category (in step I) that is a child category of Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. If that's not clear, the sentence should be rephrased.

Question re IV. If users find it useful to be taken out of maintenance space (in step III) its merits can be evaluated in CfD, nothing different from how it went previously. (Except, for the type of categories we are discussing right now, this would be an extremely unlikely scenario.) Also I don't mind if anyone knows a proper definition for "social networking" from "networking for project related purposes".

Hope this answers your questions more or less. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• There is an awful lot of weird stuff in Special:WantedCategories.

Q1. Why does anyone care? Why is it useful to peruse this list, and then to do anything about anything in there.

Assume a reasonable answer to Q1, some ideas, some old:

(#1) Restrict category creation to qualified editors. (will greatly assist mainspace category maintenance). Requested categories by non-qualified editors may be requested at CfD. NB. This in now way resticts editors from adding articles to categories, or removing them, those are article edits.

(#2) Relax USERCAT to allow anything that is claimed to assist the project in any way, including user collabroation, networking, support, even if hard to understand.

(#3) Have a bot remove all redlinked categories from all pages. The ability to be a member of an non-existent category is a technical bug of the category system. New categories have to be created before filling.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• With your first line, "weird stuff" you're exactly on target. This is stuff that should not be cared about except that it seriously pollutes Special:WantedCategories. It's primarily a maintenance problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• What makes it "useful" to peruse that list, and then to do anything about anything in there, is that redlinked mainspace categories have to be either (a) created if they're genuinely useful and warranted, (b) corrected to point to the real category if they're misspelled or misnamed versions of other categories that already exist (people do not always categorize things correctly), or (c) get stripped from the article if they're neither of those things (such as somebody deliberately adding a nonsense category as a form of vandalism.) It's not useful to just ignore redlinked categories in mainspace. That you don't personally care about the task doesn't make it an unimportant task that Wikipedia need not concern itself with at all — relinked article categories are an issue to which attention does have to be paid whether you care about it or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Bearcat, so what you are saying is that Special:WantedCategories is the only (or only reasonable) way to discover new mainspace category redlinks? I agree that reviewing new mainspace category redlinks is important. So it is required to either: (1) improved the tool, or make a new tool; or (2) remove the userspace category redlinks as they pollute the tool's results? I can't see how I can help with (1), but on (2) I will agree if it is agreed to allow potentially indirectly useful user-categories to be bluelinked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If user categories could be separated from article categories I wouldn't mind what sort of weirdness went on there. I'm not against a bit of social networking. I think it helps people to work together. Rathfelder 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 is the way to go, just eave users to clean up redlinks on their own userpages. It causes less drama and upset than the other options. Option 4 is against the CFD and will upset those that wanted to eliminate the category. Option 1 will certainly upset the individuals, and is kind of a tyranny of democracy. Option 2 is not so disruptive, but is more busy work than option 3. Many of these CFDs for usercats will be Wikipolitics, and then have people opposing to each other. We should not create drama when we don't need to, as it is a distraction from building an encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC) (who has one redlinked category on user page as a protest against its deletion)

Option #3 is acceptable only if a way can be found to segregate user categories from article categories, so that redlinked user categories are no longer interfering with the maintenance tools that exist to deal with the critically important issue of cleaning up redlinked mainspace categories. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can I still vote? Option 4. Categories on user pages are part of user pages. Categories that are objectionable to category patrollers can be added to Category:Wikipedians or some other tidy overarching category to mark them as part of the networking and fun that are also part of facilitating collaboration here. The technical fact that there is no special category space analogous to the special template space where we put userboxes is not a justification for not allowing equivalent leeway in self-applied user categories; they are parallel cases and contribute in a parallel manner to fostering community and collegiality (in addition to the case of identifying shared editing interests currently allowed under the narrow interpretation of WP:USERCAT. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Another Arbitrary section break

• My guess is that more than 99% of redlink categories on user pages are accidents and mistakes, mostly on user pages which are no longer used. If we could remove them the problem would be fixed. But there is no obvious way of distinguishing them for the small minority who care about their red links and object to them being interfered with. Rathfelder 22:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with every word Sitush and Drmies say above. I suggest as gently as possible that the people who suggest mowing down the flowers to keep the lawn tidy may not realize what a chilling effect — or, as Graeme Bartlett puts it, drama and upset — that would have on the users who like having them, if only as a form of self-expression and added liveliness. I agree with Roxy that the problem is with the tool, not the users.[2] I don't know how to make or improve tools, but surely it can be done. In other words, it's option 3 for me, and please fix the problem in another way. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC).
• #3 People need to learn to WP:DGAF about things that really, really don't matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3; plus tool improvement per Roxy the dog and Bishonen The Lizard Queen. pablo 13:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Combination of 3 and 4. Options 0, 1, and 2 are awful ideas for an automatic approach, and actively harmful to the community at times. There have been categories deleted at CfD that should never ever have been deleted – such as the LGBT Wikipedian categories which were deleted some years ago and involving some of the editors in this thread, completely missing the insult this was to many editors – and depopulating them after the deletion is an example of adding insult to injury. Some red categories – Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians, for example – are included as a protest about an action / event that is a form of expression which editors should be free to use. Editors are not automatons, and the idea that the convenience of those who work in categories should curtail or eliminate the expression of editors is offensive. Yes, an editor can post on their user page, but that doesn't make those with similar views easy to find. When CfDs are created to remove user categories without the category's members being notified, which I find unprincipled and obnoxious (at best), being able to contact former members through red links can be helpful and appropriate, and removing the resulting red links may seem like tidying but can also be inflammatory. The Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians example facilitated discussion of a serious ArbCom issue, as well as registering objections in a tangible way. Removing red links on user pages of editors who have no edited in many years is one thing, doing it to active editors is unreasonable unless the link is itself offensive. I said "combination of 3 and 4" as there are red link categories which should be blue, and there are red link categories who should be red, are there are links which should be removed... but the joke and other red categories were put there by people and they should only be dealt with by editors who see the people behind the edits and can be sensitive to the reasons the links exist. There are editors in this discussion whose judgement and actions in earlier discussions suggest to me that they are not suited to such a task. EdChem (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm OK with either 2, 3, or 4, and I strongly oppose 1. I also feel negatively about calling the new category "idiosyncratic", because that is semi-pejorative. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the problem with the tool or with the CfDers?

@Bishonen: I have been carrying on a Don Quixote mission against the wp:CfDers/Category establishment for years. It is only now that I realize I am not alone in my frustration. I am also pinging these regulars that I have seen participating in wp:CfD discussions: user:Carlossuarez46 user:Marcocapelle User:Johnpacklambert User:RevelationDirect user:Peterkingiron user:Oculi User:Shawn in Montreal user:Od Mishehu User:Fayenatic london User:BU Rob13 user:Hugo999 user:Jc37 user:PanchoS user:DexDor User:Obionekenobi There are also others who (I think) frequent the even more secretive wp:C2C. Can someone invite them please? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

Pinging user:Obiwankenobi, user:Timrollpickering, user:The Bushranger, user:Armbrust, user:Hmains.

@Ottawahitech: As for your Don Quixote mission, is Category talk:Residential condominiums in Miami an example? I replied at 22:07, 14 September 2016 suggesting what could and should be done if there was anything wrong in the category change there; but you only seemed to be carrying out an investigation/complaint about CFD process, not identifying or fixing anything wrong with the content of the encyclopedia (e.g. mis-categorised articles). – Fayenatic London 22:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What exactly am I being pinged to? What is the perceived problem here? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Ditto. Do we have to read all the above? I haven't participated because I'm indifferent on the question at the top. Also, once you have clarified the question, I think you meant Obiwankenobi; and I'd add Timrollpickering). – Fayenatic London 15:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, whatever you need, you can't take me for a regular, as you have been active on en:wp for three times longer than me. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marcoappelle: How does your amount of experience on Wikipedia relate to the question: Is the problem with the tool or with the CfDers? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

• @Ottawahitech: You said you were pinging regulars, I'm assuming that is related to experience level, but you're much more regular in that sense than I am. What question can I answer that you can't answer yourself? I don't understand the question to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Fayenatic london:, I sympathize, I also hate spending time in endless discussions. But I would rather not rephrase comments made by others.Will it help if I say that the comments made by User:Sitush, User:Drmies, User:Roxy the dogg and user:Bishonen in the thread above are the ones that will bring you up to snufff in the shortest time? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

OK, after a quick scan of parts of the above I'm in sympathy with option 3, but I hesitate to express a firm opinion without properly reading the debate and supporting/precedent pages. It seems to me that Special:WantedCategories is useful, as I have just dived into a page around #500 and resolved about 10 of them; but there are multiple ways in which the tool could be improved. E.g. editors could manually create an "opt-out" list A, of redlinked categories that do not need to be created; and a bot could produce another list B, based on the special page but excluding those on page A. Page B would then be a page where category creators could look for work. – Fayenatic London 22:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: When you became an admin on 9 July 2016 your nominator introduced you with these words: I believe that he would be a fantastic addition to our presently small corp of admins who can help manage CfD and, He has demonstrated a natural ability to discern consensus (or lack thereof) in discussions which are often complex and far from clear-cut. I therefore thought you may be i interested in this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

All I have to note is that @VegaDark:'s comment above, I genuinely think that if the general public saw the state of user categories before the current iteration of WP:USERCAT, or what would become of it after your proposed revisions, it would be very off-putting, is somewhat...contrasted by the arguments I've seen regularly used at CFD that, by viewcount, virtually nobody looks at categories (and, therefore, the logical following that all but literally nobody would look at/looks at userspace categories). That bit of snark aside, I have no opinion on this discussion, other than to note that there seems to be a unendingly-rising tide of people going "Wikipedia Needs Fixing", a following tide of "fixes", and the first never seeming to be affected (at least "positively") by the second, at which point the question should be asked if we want an actual encyclopedia, or The Book Of Da Rules? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The "If" I put in that statement was a pertinent qualifier. I don't think the general public will see much of it. However, I certainly discovered user categories when I first joined and it was very off-putting to see the type of things that existed at the time, and it made me question how serious Wikipedia really was in building an encyclopedia. That's why I've worked endlessly on making them more encyclopedic since then. VegaDark (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I lean toward option 3 (let users do what they want) but with an option 1/2-style caveat for categories that are clearly disruptive. If I want to put a redlink on my userpage to Category:Wikipedians who fondle chipmunks, what's the harm to the project? Maybe I click through the redlink and find other chipmunk fondlers interested in collaborating on our chipmunk articles, which are a bit of a mess. Bluelinking the category is a different kettle of fish, of course. On the other hand we shouldn't permit users to put just anything on their userpages. Categories clearly against the aims of the project (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who vandalize biographies of living persons) or obviously disruptive (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who are glad (name of living person) is dead) should be removed and the users warned. I don't there's much utility in policing userpages beyond that, and I fear a slippery slope to policing userboxen that don't meet with some set of editors' opinions on what constitutes a benefit to the project, and I happen to like userboxen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think you miss the point that categories are not only visible in the userbox. I don't care what people put on their user page. I object when their jokes impinge on the work of keeping the category system working properly.Rathfelder (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that was meant to be a reply to my comment, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing. A userbox shouldn't automatically populate a red category, I wasn't suggesting that they should and I'm not aware of any that do (if so, they should be fixed). But if I host a category redlink on my userpage, even if it's the result of a badly coded userbox, I don't think that breaks anything with respect to the category system. The redlinked category won't be a child category or show up on other category pages, unless someone goes and creates the category page, which we all seem to agree they shouldn't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is exactly what it does. If you put a redlink category on your user page it appears in all the lists of categories. There are so many that Special:WantedCategories has become unusable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What "lists of categories"? Do you have an example? (I don't know about this functionality) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• What do people think about User:Lady_Aleena/Media_franchises?Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Tell me again why they can't be bluelinked and left alone? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note, I have taken all of the categories off of the page mentioned above along with cleaning up several other subpages of mine with redlinked categories. There were over 300 redlinks on it. I hope this helps the people who work on wanted categories. LA (T) @ 07:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 following the bollocking from Bearcat above, I decided to walk away from this, but wtf, I'm entitled to ivote. -Roxy the dog. bark 01:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think the most viable solution is to make them all blue except for the very small number of users who actually want to have red links - like Roxy the dog. There are not many of them and we can with cope with them. And I would like permission to remove red links from user pages that have been abandoned. I don't think arguments about how silly categories will bring the project into disrepute carry much weight. Only painstaking research would find them. And any organisation will have a laugh behind the scenes.Rathfelder (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Who do you think is going to give you (scare quotes) 'Permission'? As I understand it, the community feels that people should only edit others user pages (by which I mean User pages and User:Talk pages) under very specific circumstances, and this is not one of them. To be clear, I don't believe Admins have authority to grant you such permission, so you would be right out on a limb. You already know this from the kickback you have received over the time you have been fiddling with userpages. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That is why I am not doing it. But the vast majority of redlinks on user pages have clearly been put there by mistake, on user pages which have not been touched for years - most of which are actually draft articles, not intended to be user pages as they are supposed to be. Rathfelder (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What did you do that caused you to receive flack? Deleting content from other's userspace will cause offense, but there are other options. Do not cut Category:Nuisance redlinked category, instead comment it out, to <!-- [[Category:Nuisance redlinked category]] -->. This way, when the user returns, he can find what he remembers putting there. Moderately sensible categories should be bluelinked. Redlinking multi-member categories is obviously counterproductive. Other's userpages can be edited within reason. A consensus here would authorize it. I suspect you went too far, cutting text, which I can tell you I would find offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talku) 01:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Except I don't see a consensus for even commenting out the categories, except for those clearly entered by mistake. (Those with a misspelled word, where the misspelling isn't part of the joke.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A consensus for even commenting out unsuitable and redlinked categories? No, I have only just raised the idea, as a less offensive option for the proposed straight removal of redlinked categories (which is in heavy discussion). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There may be a consensus for commenting out "unsuitable" and redlinked categories. There is little enough consensus as to what is "unsuitable".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Special:WantedCategories I see very few categories that shouldn't be bluelinked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That goes back to the question of whether the "unsuitable" line established by a small group of CfD-ers in 2007 represents consensus. I think the evidence is that it does not. The post-CfD-deletion redlink populated categories are clear statements of protest. The worst failure at CfD was, and is, the belief that members of usercategories don't need to be notified of deletion of their usercategory. So, I say this discussion has arisen and proceeds in the shadow of a false consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would suggest that the lack of people choosing option 4 (despite canvassing) quite clearly supports the consensus. And, at this point, it's been in place for 10 years. You're trying to go back and invalidate something decided 10 years ago, while rather, if you believe consensus has changed, you would need to get consensus to change it from the status quo at this point, not go back and try and invalidate the status quo. I think there is ample evidence in this discussion that will never happen. I'll also add people in redlinks is not "clear statements of protest" as you would have us believe. How many users are inactive and never noticed the category turning in to a redlink? As this discussion already determined, most admins simply let users stay in the category after a CfD. How many articles do you think would be left remaining in redlinked categories if a bot didn't go through and enact CfD decisions? Using that same logic, articles left in red categories would suggest a protest over the CfD resulting in deletion of the mainspace category. VegaDark (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, VegaDark, I feel I am maintaining a minority opinion. If the community upholds the restriction against user categories of interest, it can be lived with. I cannot deny that probably many or most interested-in category members never had intention of collaborating on those interests.

Many user redlinks are clear statements of protest. Didn't Cydebot empty categories when they were deleted at CfD, meaning that membership reflects an active response by the current members? I checked several cases, and that was the story. I maintain that it was not collegiate to delete usercategories without notifying users who added themselves, and that the 2007-8 consensuses were the result of members being left out of the discussions.

Usercategories and mainspace categories are very different. I doubt that categories have ever been used for protest in mainspace, and am not sure why you bring it up.

I propose/support having all inactive users' redlinked categories commented out (using <!-- -->) on their userpage (or talk or subpage). Similarly, I see no good reason not to comment-out all CfD-deleted categories, once, based on a very rough reading of the rough consensus of this discussion so far. Weird stuff should be commented out per BOLD, and errors should be fixed. Disputes should go back to CfD, with better notification. Usercategory deletions should be first listified, to somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder is on a mission. Bluelinking a few redlinked user categories by inventing a parent category of "idiosyncratic Wikipedians" is a bit mad; do those Wikipedians self-identify as idiosyncratic? What are the parameters of idiosyncrasy? There seems to be a bit of a waste of time here on one man's mission. pablo 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• The mission is justifiable. If a category is acceptable, it can be bluelinked. Should be. If a category is longstanding and with members, it is de facto accepted. What's the difference? Redlink categories can't be eliminated without alerting the members. The root problem is CfDers believing they are justified in deleting user categories without notifying the members. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:POINT !votes

I thought it was pertinent to mention here that User:Rathfelder has taken to opposing all user category nominations on the grounds that deleting said categories would leave behind users in a redlink. This certainly appears to be a WP:POINT violation in my book. I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look. That certainly cannot be the intended goal regardless of the result of this RfC. VegaDark (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• In light of these discussions, it looks to me to be a valid !vote along the lines of "causes less disruption by being blue than red". I don't think there is any real case that Rathfelder is violating WP:POINT. It would be extraordinary to sanction per WP:POINT for a !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think I have opposed three deletions. I think we have a problem with these categories and I don't think it is resolved by debating, in respect of each one, whether it should be deleted. There are many hundreds, possibly thousands, of red user page categories. Some are red because the users want them to be red. The vast majority appear to be red because the users didn't understand how to create categories. They cause problems which nobody talks about. I turned some of them blue and I am pleased that this has generated discussion, as it is clear that not many people knew anything about it. My position is indeed that they "cause less disruption by being blue than red". Indeed if they are red it is quite possible that seriously objectionable stuff will appear but nobody will notice it. I don't think the present policy is defensible. It claims that there are policies about what categories users may apply to their own pages, but it is not permitted to enforce those policies. It seems clear that actually there is not majority support for them. The majority position appears to be that users can put almost any category they like on their user page and nobody should interfere with it. That is not the policy applied to categories in general. So we have a policy which is incoherent and ignored. If the general view is that user categories are not like article categories and should be treated differently, then let us say so and establish systems which separate the two. Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't actually see what is achieved by deleting categories without removing them from user pages. It was decided in 2007 that Category:Generation X Wikipedians should be deleted but it is still there on User:Lady Aleena's page. I have no wish to remove it from her page, but if it did any harm before 2007 it is still doing it now.Rathfelder (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I will be reviewing all the redlinked categories on my main user page in the next day or two. LA (T) @ 07:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Another option

I admit I am probably the big bad in this area. I had hundreds of red linked user categories on my user page and various subpages. Since I became aware of this debate, I have remedied the situation by removing most of them (but can not bring myself from removing two because I am a crazy barefoot cat-lady). So Bearcat, I hope the kludge in WantedCategories is down to a more acceptable level.

I am not with those who wish to add all the wanted user categories, but I am not for forcing users to remove the red-linked categories from their user pages. They have to be shown another way to find users who share their interest, and there is a way.

The way is the What links here tool. First a user adds a link to an article on their user page, for example SmokeyJoe can add a link to Neutral Good on his user page. Now, another link can be added next to it, let's call it "Wikipedians". So add [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/Neutral_Good|limit=5000&namespace=2}} Wikipedians] which would get you Neutral Good Wikipedians. Or you could use {{User:Lady Aleena/link|Neutral Good}} to make it. There is a limit of up to 5,000, so if an article has more than 5,000 user page links to it, you won't see them all. (The part of the link "&namespace=2" goes directly to user pages.)

So to those who are trying desperately to get WantedCategories cleared of unwanted Wikipedian categories, I suggest you go to those users' talk pages and show them the above. Want links here may not be as pretty as a category, but the users will still see who has an article linked on their user pages.

So, until the programmers of Wikkipedia can have WantedCategories (and maybe even WantedPages and WantedTemplates) ignore user pages (which would be the best option), it might be a good idea to ask users with red-linked user categories to remove them and tell them their red-linked categories are clogging up the works.

I hope that made sense. LA (T) @ 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Very sensible. But requires users to do something. The vast majority of red categories on user pages are put there by accident mostly on pages which have been abandoned. They are not likely to respond. If we could remove red categories from user pages which have not been altered for 12 months that would bring the problem down to manageable levels. If any of those users then put the category back that would be fine. Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  Rathfelder, how does one accidentally add oneself to a red category? And what I am suggesting is telling users of another way of finding other users with the same interests while also warning them away from using red categories. So, placing such a message acts as a warning. Should the red categories remain after a set period of time after, then remove the red categories. Warnings should always be given before action is taken. Letting the users know the damage they are causing with their red categories might be what is needed for the (active) users to reconsider using them (like I did). LA (T) @ 08:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• It is seems pretty obvious that many red categories on user pages were put there by people who never actually wrote an article - they were just experimenting. Many of the pages are autobiographical, or about their favourite TV programme and the like. A very different issue from users who consciously want red links.Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I read... summarising the offered options:

1 (VG) Empty deleted redlink categories and threaten users who re-add them

2 (VG) Empty deleted redlink categories

3 (VG) Status quo. Active deletion of usercategories, but don't empty them

4 (VG) Turn non-empty red categories blue, and add usercat leeway to WP:USERCAT.

0 (BHG) Empty redlink categories, and use CSDs or CfD to delete any that turn blue again.

5 (LA) Convert redlinked category memberships into pagelinks (allow continued networking by following WhatLinksHere), a pseudocategory system

Stepping back, there are three choices, if anything is to be done:

A Fix the tool Special:WantedCategories

B Empty redlink categories. (How? cut the category lines; comment out the category lines; convert the category lines per option 5)

C Bluelink the categories.

A would be great, but I don't think WMF or developers care about helping editors, and least of all anything to do with categories.

B seems sensible, for most redlink categories at least, as most of them are pretty weird. The downside appears to be the work involved, and risk of backlash upon interfering with many user's userpages. Here, I am a bit confused, as I thought that CfD usercatergory deletion was immediately followed by a bot emptying the categories? I saw it happen. When did it stop?

C would most easily and immediately fix the Special:WantedCategories.

I repeat, I think the root cause for this trouble is CfD not notifying members of usercategories of CfDs. The failure to engage stakeholders before making a decision is what causes backlash. For this reason, I think all of the past CfD usercategory CfDs carry no authority, populated previously deleted redlink categories should be bluelinked, and anyone who dislikes the bluelinked usercatergories may re-CfD them subject to mandatory notification of stakeholders, including members. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's like asking NRA members if we should take their guns away or not. People who self-select to add themselves into unencyclopedic categories, in my experience, will almost certainly be in support of keeping said category regardless of the reasons for deletion or policy behind it. I'd be shocked if you ever deleted a single user category if this were the requirement (which I have to assume is the reason you are proposing it, as you think they should be kept around). To notify only those most likely to support keeping the category is not representative of community consensus by any means. VegaDark (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  VegaDark's reasoning is obviously correct on this. If the category doesn't even exist and if it would be [re-]deleted at CfD if it did exist, then there are no "stakeholders". You can't hold stake in something that doesn't and won't exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• VegaDark's definition of unencyclopedic is the heart of the issue. It every usercategory unencylopedic if it doesn't directly lead improving content. Note that I don't dispute that most of the usercategories he's had deleted were unjustified, just not all.
  The insistence on not informing usercategory members of the usercategory's deletion discussion is unjustifiable. The NRA comparison would assume that the decision was to be made in some backwater location where only the regular in-crowd know to go unless invited. Article deletion discussions are widely notified by the AfD notice and the notice appearing in watchlisting. The article watchers are presumably biased to keeping articles, so why doesn't that lead to all articles being kept, or all article with enough authors? Keeping stakeholders in the dark because they might be biased is not an honest way to hold a discussion. I don't necessarily want to see lots of weird usercategories kept around, so much as I'd like for there to be a proper discussion, and that discussion requires the notification of stakeholders, and these stakeholders include the redlinked category members.
• User:SMcCandlish, where a user has re-added a category to their userpage, after a bot removed it, I think that is an obvious declaration of interest. And the redlink category clearly exists, because it exists, it functions in all ways like a category, except that it cannot be categorised. Rathfelder's bluelinking by categorisation is oddly quite logical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If the category is useful as a collaboration tool. So maybe bot automation doesn't cut it. I would suggest, then, that they should be deleted speedily if obviously frivolous or disruptive, but subject to CfD if there's doubt. If it's re-creation of a previously deleted pointless user category, that's already a speedy deletion candidate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:SMcCandlish, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:VegaDark, I just had another look at Special:WantedCategories, and at the top, with 70 members, is Category:User pig. OK, I admit I don't really understand what is going on. How about we agree to empty all red usercategories (by commenting them), and then see who adds them back. Then invite those few to a discussion, because it really is required to talk to them before threatening them. They might say something unexpected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Works for me. I didn't like the idea of threatening them anyway, other than with a vague declaration that re-adding them might be considered disruptive if they keep doing it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe and SMcCandlish: I have not checked the contents of Category:User pig ... but I have a hunch that if I did check the history of pages added to the category, the timing might be related to this viral news story from late 2015. That one brought much hilarity at the time, but 14 months on it would be another stale joke.>br />I'm fine in theory with talking to the users who want red-linked categories, but in practise I don't have the energy to do that. If you two want to volunteer to talk them through it, that's fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(Note: My follwoing response was written and I got caught in a cross edit, so some parts may not make sense.)

SmokeyJoe, I would suggest giving up on the blue option. You would have to change consensus on whether or not Wikipedia is a social network, then you would have to change consensus on what should and should not be acceptable as a user category. You have two fights ahead of you, and neither of them will be easy, though I may support you on both depending on the tone. But for now, it would be better to remove the red categories and find other ways to find like minded people. I did.

Remember there are people who do hard work within the current constraints and are not being helped with all of the current red user categories. So until there is a method in place to keep red user categories from showing up in WantedCategories, do those editors a favor and make their work easier for them.

I have started looking around for a place to ask for programmatic changes to be made for Wanted Categories, Pages, Templates, and Files. I don't know how long it will take to find the right place to start that discussion, but in the meantime, let us both do the right thing and get rid of the remaining red categories on our user pages.

I know what you are going through, I have been on the losing side of so many battles here on Wikipedia I had stopped editing for long periods of time. One of those issues was the social networking aspect of Wikipedia before Twitter and Facebook were things. Begin writing up your arguments for the inclusion of the social networking aspect of Wikipedia in your user space and put a link to it on my talk page to read over.

So, we should accept that red user categories will not be turned blue unless they show a solid project goal such as editing groups of articles. Also, acknowledge those red user categories which do not meet the current criteria are damaging to the main project which is article space. Also, blue categories which do not meet the current criteria will be targeted for deletion, and it is up to members to keep an eye on their favorite user categories.

It breaks my heart, but the barefoot cat lady will be retired tonight. LA (T) @ 08:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors think again before asking for technical changes?

I am sure that all these things suggest by Bearcat are technically doable, but they would join a long list of requested technical changes, nearly all focused on improving the experience of readers and/or facilitating the creation and maintenance of encyclopedic content. The WMF has to prioritise these requests, juggling user requests against the technical requirements of maintain one of the world' biggest websites on a budget which is a tiny fraction of that of other big websites.

Given all that, I find it hard to see hoe his one would be parsed as anything other than: "add some complex functionality which doesn't help readers, doesn't help content creation or maintenance, and appears to be solely to facilitate the sort of social networking which en.wp consensus has long deprecated".

If you're lucky, that sort of task gets a priority level of "only when every other community request has been implemented". More likely it's a priority of "no, nay, never".

The choices made here need to reflect the technology as it actually is, rather than as how any of us might like it to be. This is a social problem which needs a social solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Newly arriving survey comments (assuming addition of sub-proposals is finished)

• In descending order, I prefer 2, BHG's 0, 1. Not 3 or 4, and not LA's 5 (too much new tech work that doesn't actually benefit the encyclopedia). If 0 or 1 end up the winner, tone down the wording. It's enough to say it's disruptive and leave it at that; there's no call to mention much less invent an enforcement regime, since ANI already exists as the enforcement system for DE. I agree in particular with the point that anyone may remove a redlinked cat., as routine maintenance, and agree with periodic purging of them. Use a bot to do it, so there is no potential for editor-to-editing personal conflict over the matter. Just make it an automated cleanup process. Speedily delete if it's obviously nonsense or disruptive, or if it's re-creation of a previously deleted cat., otherwise CfD it if it's potentially of collaborative use.

  I also agree with BHG's statement; I too have used redlinked cats. as a form of humor, but it's old hat, userboxes do a better job of it, and we shouldn't impede maintenance just to make a jest that other people probably won't notice or care about anyway. I sympathize with LA's point, but it's not enough; I'm a "crazy cat gentleman" (in socks), but use a userbox to make my ailurophilia point, not a category, and it is sufficient.

  I have no prejudice against limiting category creation to experienced users, though this would complicate matters (e.g. only delete redlinked cats. after X amount of time to request cat. creation). Another wrinkle is we might want to auto-create the category if two or more users are redlinking it (and it is not something disruptive), and even consider that we have leeway to create and normalize it to one name when 2+ users are redlinking essentially the same usercat but in different spelling or slightly different wording.

  PS: Also agree with comment in related thread below, about things like a 'Category:Wikipedians willing to take photos': "For broad offers, a notice board might be much better". It definitely would, and we already have such things working successfully for translation, conversion of bitmapped line-art to vector form, etc.
  PPS, added later: Also somewhat agree with below comment that "Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Linux" or, more concisely, "Category:Wikipedians interest in Linux" perhaps is more useful than "who use", "who like", etc. We could normalize all variants like that to one focused on collaboration, remove the vague ones, and inform users who had them of the collaboration-focused one (since use/like/have/etc. aren't necessarily an indication of collaboration interest. However, this need not be done for any topic for which there is a wikiproject; just point those editors there.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  Edit: I considered some above comments and rescinded the bot idea, replacing with speedy and regular CfD. And added a partial agreement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • That is all very agreeable. It would be perfect if only we would inform the redlink members that we are about to give ourselves the authority to do it (remove their redlink categories). Auto-create the category if two or more users are redlinking it is something I think I was suggesting, with a follow-up big CfD, with notifications, to then delete the majority and empty them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

    I self-refactored above, to strike the bot idea as maybe too much, per discussion higher up, and add a point. Notification of and consensus from the broader editorial community: After the list of 5 of 6 options is winnowed to one proposal, or a smaller list of proposals that seem here to be most viable, do a round 2 discussion as an RfC at WP:VPPOL. (The current discussion is too sprawling for most people to get through it.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have redlinked cats on my userpage. After reading this discussion (not every word, of course), though, I was thinking of adding the following two: Category:Wikipedians who don't like endless discussions and Category:Wikipedians who don't like categories. I pick Option #59, although #163.2 would be acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure requested

This RFC has been open for 32 days, so I have posted[3] at WP:AN/RFC to request that an uninvolved editor close the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:BrownHairedGirl, can I suggest that you and User:VegaDark reboot the RfC, preferably with exactly one serious proposal for action, seeking simple approval. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Personally, I would describe the consensus here as "almost, but not quite", as well as extremely opaque for anyone not already involved. I do, however, feel a definitely consensus for "do something". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• The thing that I think would most likely get consensus based on all the comments here is to make the rule that users are free to add non-disruptive redlinked categories to their userpage, and after a certain timeframe (3-6 months?) of inactivity from that user, we allow for other users to remove said redlinked category from their page without repercussion. As User:Rathfelder already pointed out, a large majority of redlinked categories are from users who aren't active on the project anymore. If the inactive ones were cleared, it would be trivial to avoid the few remaining in Special:Wantedcategories. This satisfies the majority of the concerns addressed about hindering cleanup, while also satisfying those who feel users should be free to add these type of categories to pages. I wouldn't go so far as to say this RfC reflects that consensus currently (It would be easy to just say status quo) but I think this solution would feel like an improvement from the current situation from a majority of users while causing the least amount of drama. A more questionable decision would be to explicitly allow user categories to be emptied right after they are deleted at CfD. I will point out that I described the status quo as sometimes these user categories are emptied after a CfD - I've found this is more often the case than not with most of the user category nominations I've made recently, actually. In fact, I think the only user categories that haven't been treated as normal (and therefore emptying of all users) are closures performed by User:BrownHairedGirl or other discussions directly on the pages where categories being emptied was being discussed. I will also note that the instructions for closing CfDs have no mention of treating user categories differently - I would suspect that the vast majority of users, including admins, don't particularly know there is any controversy at all with emptying them. So, should this RfC close as status quo, then I guess that's still allowed if an admin chooses to list the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Personally I don't think keeping the status quo solves much. Wanted categories will still be cluttered to the point of dissuading people from even working on it, and we kind of set a double standard about newly nominated categories vs. old ones in regards to emptying. So, in that respect, I agree this should be re-started in some form focusing on if there is in fact consensus to support the first change and to make a definitive rule regarding what to do with the categories at the time of closure. As the creator of this RfC I won't be so bold myself, at least not until after this is closed by a neutral party, but I would fully support if ultimately the closing admin simply closed this as "Open a new RfC/extend this one another 30 days on these two specific issues" VegaDark (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• @VegaDark: I see where you are coming from with the 3-6 months proposal, but in practice I think that is unworkable. From my experience it would impose an excessive workload on editors encountering a redlinked user category. Here's why I say that:
  Say that the threshold is 6 months. Suppose an editor (who I'll call RedCleaner) is clearing Special:WantedCategories encounters a Category:Foo Bar Wikipedeians with three entries, User1 and User2. Redcleaner now has to check the revision history of each those three pages to see when the category was added. Redcleaner doesn't see it explicitly noted in any of User1's edit summary, so uses a revision history search ... which still draws a blank.
  Ahah, says Redclaner, it is being added through a userbox. So now Redcleaner has to look at the page source and try to guess which userbox is doing it. Maybe they are lucky the first time, or maybe it takes a few guesses, but eventually they identify the userbox involved.
  Now they have check when the category was added to the userbox. If it is more than 6 months ago, then Redcleaner needs to go back and check each of the three user pages for when the userbox was added, and that may mean another revision history search.
  Of course, in some cases, the userbox will itself be categorised, which may simplify the checks; but there is still quite a lot of work for RedCleaner.
  And here's the real sticking point: there is no way to tag the category as checked, so the same set of checks will be made repeatedly. That's an appalling waste of editorial time.
  The core problem is that any redlinked usercat is disruptive, because it clogs up Special:WantedCategories. So I think that either we delete redlinked categories or we don't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: I certainly wasn't envisioning that entire process when I proposed that timeframe. First off, if the red category is attached to a template/userbox, it should automatically be either created or removed from that template without discussion or a time limit. If it's on an individual user's page, then just look at their contributions and find if their most recent edit was more recent than the set threshold for removing the category. That's the entire process I was envisioning, which I don't think would be very burdensome. I agree with your later point of inability to tag it as marked would be an issue - perhaps create a database report on user pages containing a red-linked category where people could edit to show they have marked pages as checked? (On the filp side, you could create a report of everything at Special:Wantedcategories excluding categories with the word "Wikipedian" in them for a mini-solution to the wanted categories report...if we changed the rule to at least allow people to be immediately removed from categories other than that that doesn't immediately give away they are a user category. But, I agree with you that any redlinked category is a bad idea, but if we cannot have consensus to remove them all as we would prefer, then it would at least be an improvement to have some additional rules regarding removal of certain redlinks (in this case the majority of redlinks would be removed and, although some users with strong feelings on the issue would remain, the problems would go from a medium sized one to a small one. In my view, at least. VegaDark (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I...have seen some lengthy discussions, and I have seem some discussions that have very nearly zero practical relevance to the actual project, but this is probably the highest concurrent score on both scales that I can remember off the top of my head. I suspect some editors really need to rethink their priorities. And with that I'll take my disparaging self elsewhere and do something productive. TimothyJosephWood 18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Timothyjosephwood this is a fairly simple issue of a set of jokes which have the unintended but real side effect of impeding category maintenance. The debate is lengthy because of various editors have different priorities
    If maintaining categories is not something you place a high priority on, then it it is indeed best for you to direct your energies elsewhere. But next time, please just move on without making unnecessarily disparaging comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• I just discovered an interesting thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Categories_that_supposedly_do_not_help_foster_encyclopedic_collaboration. Apparently, it is not already linked from this page. The discussion there supports my observation at the Wikipedia community does not support authoritarian crackdowns on collegiate humour. This does not mean there is not a way forward.

Above, both VegaDark and BHG both, in my opinion, fail to be concise. VegaDark turning tentative, BHG getting technical. If I may suggest:

Excessive redlinked categories clogs up the otehrwise excellent category maintenance tool, Special:WantedCategories. To alleviate the problem, any editor may do the following:

• Add an initial colon (convert [[Category:RedlinkCategory]] to [[:Category:RedlinkCategory]]) note that this will retain pseudo-category functionality through WhatLinksHere
  • On any userpage of an editor who has been inactive for six months
  • On any userpage where where the RedlinkCategory appears to be an unintentional mistake
  • On any userpage RedlinkCategory has no clear intended purpose, and the membership consists only of pages belonging to a single user
• but if reverted, take the matter to WP:CfD.

• Many RedLinkCategories are populated by auto-categorising userbox templates. These RedLinkCategories may be depopulated by removing the categorisation from the template. This may be done boldly by any editor where there is no record of a decision to add autocategorisation to that specific userbox template.

• Other RedLinkedCategories may only be emptied following a fresh discussion at WP:CfD, and where all users with pages in the category are notified of the discussion.

• Any decision to delete a category is necessarily a decision to promptly depopulate the category. The default method for depopulating categories in userspace shall be by insertion of an initial colon.

• Some attempts at networking by usercategorization would be better advised to network using a Project Space page noticeboard and signup section. In such cases, consider listifying to a Project Space page notice board.

• RedlinkedCategories of possible but unclear or dubious purpose should be bluelinked, members advised of the problem, and disputes discussed at WP:CfD.

Feel free to modify, or copy and modify the above. It is a fairly quick writeup. Methods of cleaning, such as using bots as mentioned by BHG, should be left to users implementation the fixes, and should not steer or cloud the discussion of approval of the principles behind the cleaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see anything here that I think would get much disagreement other than some clarification over what qualifies as an "other" redlinked category (requiring a fresh Cfd, do you just mean if someone is trying to de-populate a redlinked category that doesn't fit one of the initial criteria?) and the requirement to notify all editors in said category (Ends up being a brigade of non-policy based keeps in my experience) but as written this would be a far better result than the status quo from my perspective. Also are you suggesting that all previous categories that have been deleted at CfD, but redlinks remain in that category, that it should require a fresh CfD to remove those people? I think the folks at CfD would take issue with a CfD on an already-deleted category, although this would be a unique scenario admittedly, and I can't think of a better venue to discuss it (we've had similar discussions at CfD to depopulate parent categories, so perhaps listing a redlink is warranted on occasion). That being said I would disagree that there needs to be a new CfD in that circumstance unless the sole issue of the CfD is depopulation of the already deleted category and not whether to allow bluelinking the category (which would essentially amount to overturning every CfD ever if someone simply added themselves to a previously deleted category, requiring a new discussion). VegaDark (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• > "do you just mean if someone is trying to de-populate a redlinked category that doesn't fit one of the initial criteria?"

Yes. Unilateral depopulation of categories is pretty disruptive, so allow it only for specific objective criteria. (add missing types now)

> "notify all editors in said category (Ends up being a brigade of non-policy based keeps in my experience)".

Well, do it a few times and see what happens. I think it may well turn out a lot more reasonable if the option of listifying silly usercategories is on the table. Also, you have to notify people if you want to educate them.

> "this would be a far better result than the status quo from my perspective."

I hope so. An escape from this quagmire is needed.

>"all previous categories that have been deleted at CfD, but redlinks remain in that category"

Not sure. I thought category deletion *always* meant depopulating. If past-deleted categories weren't depopulated, then depopulate them, maybe slowly in case there is backlash.

What I was really getting at is past-CfD-deleted categories that were depopulated, but members subsequently re-added themselves. Reverting, or re-adding, should be taking a a clear statement that they want a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe it's ironic that you reproach me for being verbose, but write a comment that takes more lines on screen than mine. But there we are.
This issue is really quite simple: Per WP:REDNOT, a redlinked category is an error. An editor should use their discretion to either remove the redlink or create the category. Simple. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Reproach? I don't mean to reproach. A bit a clumsy humour was intended. Actually, I was confused, I thought RedCleaner was a category maintenance bot. I thing an actionable proposal to be agreed upon is the way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl, I don't think citing WP:REDNOT to eliminate every redlinked category is the way to go. It is obvious, from here and the ANI thread, that you are going to have to live with Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page. Also, they will continue to be generated if you don't engage the people or activities that generate them. I'm not sure whether you've responded to my suggestion, that cleanup begin with colon insertion on inactive users' userpage, strip templated autocategorisation from userbox templates where there was no record of intention of categorisation, and add colons to weird random categories that categorise only a single user? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: those ideas you mention are already happening. And I have tried directly engaging with some editors, with some success.
But it's easy to lose sight of a very simple point: a red-linked article is often appropriate, but a red-linked category is always an error which should be fixed. What I have seen is that when that is explained, some editors respond well. We will be left with a hard core of but-I-like-it-and-dob't-care-about-the-consequences approach. I hope that group will turn out to be small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that "a red-linked category is always an error which should be fixed". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A possible solution for zombie categories

I just tried something which might help for zombie categories which persist as zombies, remaining as redlinks after they have been deleted at CFD or UCFD.

AS a container, I created Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus.

Then for a few such categories, I re-created the category page as hard redirect, so that anyone clicking on the category link gets taken to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus.

See for example Category:Rouge admins.

Any thoughts on this idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@VegaDark, SmokeyJoe, and Rathfelder: hoping for your thoughts on this idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Good. It takes these few deliberate expressive things out of the debate while the weird stuff gets cleaned. Later, if I stir myself with enthusiasm, I may start a CfD to rename "... deleted by consensus" to "... deleted at CfD". CfD does not enjoy representative participation, and practices non-notification of stakeholders, and it is very easy to make the case that CfD decisions are not necessarily "consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Joe, all en.wp consensus-forming processes are consensus-of-those-who-turn up. CFD does not practice non-notification. Consider for example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 10#Subcategories_of_London_Boroughs, possibly the biggest single CFD nomination ever, with 597 categories involved. All tagged, and the WikiProject notified, but only 5 !voters in 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks BHG. I think CfD practice has improved. Non-notification was a problem with the historic usercat CfDs. If, despite effort to widely publicise, only five turn up, I think you can largely ascribe that to it being a sensible proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Interestingly, several of the user categories I looked at in this set were sent to DRV after a UCFD deletion. The subsequent UCFDs all produced the same outcome, despite all the extra attention which DRV places on a category, so I am not persuaded that there is any evidence that of skewed outcomes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Some data is here. There is/was not a massive systematic problem with CfD, but there were problems. There were several contentious debates at DRV. People weren't happy. Whether the problem is with the rigidity of the 2007 CfD regulars, or the misguided expectations of categories held by some, is debatable. The way forward, I believe, is to always notify stakeholders. Asserting that if there were interested in the category then they would have watchlisted the category, was not the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to predict how people would react, but I think it's worth trying. Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We will have to see what the response is, but I hope that it could be a win-win all round:

1. The redlinks go, assisting category maintenance
2. Those who want these cats on their userpages still get what they want
3. The pages are not navigable categories, which I hope respects the intent of the CFD/UCFD decisions.

However, it may break. RussBot converted all the hard redirects into soft category redirects, presumably as a precursor to merger ... which is not what I intended. That has been reverted, but the bot will almost certainly try again. So I have asked the bot's owner to see if there is a way to prevent this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Russ hopes that using {{Nobots}} will fend off the bot. Now being tested. Fingers crossed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It worked. The bots are leaving the categories alone. So I think we have a viable workaround for the zombie categories problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't my favorite solution for a multitude of reasons. The main one being that I consider inappropriate blue linked categories, even only in the capacity of a redirect, as a bigger issue than redlinked categories. Something bluelinked even as a redirect gives an aura of acceptability of these categories in my view, especially if we are allowing user pages to remain in the redirects - something we would never do with other categories. Also, the redirect target category itself would be deleted under the current guidelines as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. In the article space we would certainly delete redirects that were implausible/inappropriate. Also, it seems like we are just opening the door for these categories to be nominated at RfD - what happens if it's deleted there? I would have liked a discussion on this solution before being implemented. That being said it's not the worst result in the world and I could deal with it, but I don't think this is the panacea we're looking for. VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @VegaDark it's kludge which is not my ideal solution either, for many reasons. And maybe you're right that the redirected categs will be RFDed, or the target category will be the CFDed; we'll see. But apart from simply enforcing WP:REDNOT, does anyone have a better idea than this least-worst option? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Given the progress of discussions on this page so far, I think it is an excellent step forward. Barring serious objections, which I don't count VegaDark's of 20:19, 26 February 2017 as, I think these dubious usercategories should be listified, each category to its own page, possible in a subpage of WP:WikiProject ProjectSpace activism. Given the discussions here, to delete the categories now would be disruptive, as would initiating CfD discussions for them without notifying people who have, on this page, clearly indicated an interested. (That would be most posters, but not all, not Timothyjosephwood for example.) The first objective is to clear out the bulk of the clutter interfering with Special:WantedCategories. Let's see if that objective can be met before waylaying interested parties into fighting over category redirect, accept them as an interim solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• hah. I see you guys are still at it. Well done. Just thought I'd let you know that whatever you guys did that is being discussed in this section successfully changed some of my previously red-linked categories to blue. So I made them red again. Thought you should know. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: that's extraordinary. You and other wanted to retain those categories even after there was a consensus to delete them. When a mechanism is implemented which allows you to continue to do without impeding the encyclopedic work of cleaning up redlinked categories, you deliberately alter your categories with the explicit intent of ensuring that you again create redlinks, contrary to WP:REDNOT, in the full knowledge that this impedes the work of editors doing category maintenance. That's a classic WP:POINT exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Disagree that this was extraordinary. It was completely predictable. Can you, BHG, perhaps address specifically my suggestion involving "On any userpage RedlinkCategory has no clear intended purpose, and the membership consists only of pages belonging to a single user"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @SmokeyJoe: maybe it is to expected in this context, but it is still extraordinary behaviour.
        As your suggestion, I am concerned that it would implicitly endorse other types of red-linked categories, and thereby make things worse overall. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • BHG, my suggestion that I think you misread is that we here formally agree that single-user dubious usercategories shall be modified by insertion of a leading colon. This has the effect of de-populating the redlinked category, while retaining a redlink to the redlink category, which nearly serves the same purpose. At later dates, one can check the redlinked category's WhatLinksHere to count the pseudomembership, or to network as per the putative purpose. The addition of a colon doesn't remove any characters from the user's page, and so I think it is far less offensive than other fixes. I remember feeling offended that a bot would come to my userpage and remove categories that I placed there intentionally, with no sign left afterwards.
          If we formally agree to this, them we can chide others who revert. If you go fixing things unilaterally, you're begging to be countered, with stalemate likely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
          • @SmokeyJoe: no, I don't think I misunderstood you. Your explanation confirms what I understood first time round.
            My concern remains that while your proposal would help with those categories. the fact that it mandates action only a particular type of redlink comes with a corollary implication that other types of redlinked category are not be touched.
            I appreciate your good intent to try to fix at least some of the problem, but I think it's important not to in any way endorse by implication the intentional introduction of an error in to the category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you misunderstand what I didn't say? The rest get listed at CfD.
              I gave a list of circumstances for which the action would be to insert the colon, for categories not worth a discussion, where attempting the discussion would be counterproductive, due to high numbers of categories and low numbers of genuinely interested stakeholders. Imagine nominating one hundred single-member redlinked categories, and notifying the members? It would be a massive confusing non-discussion, if done collectively, few members would be on the same page as other members, or if done separately, it would be many unattended discussions.
              However, when you nominate a redlinked category containing pages of a dozen users, notifying them all, and suggesting listification, pointing out the benefits of a signup list and noticeboard over a category, I think that is likely to be a much more productive discussion. The 2007 discussions were not productive because the delete !voters gave little or no thought to validating the intentions of the members of the usercategories.
              I suggest inserting colons into the trivial redlinked categories first because they will be the easiest to justify, they are obviously not doing anything for networking of any kind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
              • BrownHairedGirl, you say that "I think it's important not to in any way endorse by implication the intentional introduction of an error in to the category system." The implication is that all the red-linked user categories are necessarily errors. The fact that the small group at CfD don't like something doesn't make it erroneous or wrong. SmokeyJoe characterises the 2007/8 discussions as unproductive "because the delete !voters gave little or no thought to validating the intentions of the members of the usercategories," which I think is generous. The editors were not listened to, their concerns were not addressed, and the people behind those editor names were disrespected and marginalised. The red links on user pages were not introduced to impede category maintenance, nor were they the introduction of intentional errors... they were a protest against a flawed decision. The "not wikipedian" red category was not an error, it was raising an important issue. Is it unfair that the importance of category maintenance is minimised and the good intent of these discussions is doubted by some (including me)? Maybe... but it is the consequence of what went before, and of the prioritising of category maintenance as important above all else, and it is also why Roxy the dog's actions were predictable. A lot of goodwill has been destroyed, and rebuilding it is going to take engagement with the community that recognises that category maintenance is not the only consideration. In fact, I wonder if it could be that the small community strongly involved with category maintenance is out of step with broad community consensus? We have VegaDark arguing against notifying editors in categories proposed for deletion due to bias, without considering whether those users are best placed to comment on how they might be useful for, or even used in, collaboration. I get an unfortunate sense of some underlying beliefs like "policy is on our side, we're right, we'll do what we do, everyone else just has to accept it"... which, I admit, is also annoying me and maybe making things here seem more adversarial. EdChem (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem, I'm sorry, I promised to reply to your similar point in another discussion lower down this page, but didn't get around to it. So I will reply here.
I understand where you are coming from. You think that a wrong decision was made at a CFD which was handled badly, and that editors have a right to protest. So let me unpick that.
Start with the facts. The first CFD of Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian was at CFD 2012 October 24. It was closed as "speedy delete" by an admin who I have never before or since seen at CFD. There was then a deletion review which overturned that speedy close, and a fresh CFD on 2012 October 31. There was a very big debate there, and the discussion was closed as "delete" by an admin who I think may have been to CFD once or twice before, but is certainly no regular. As far as I can see, there was no DRV of that closure. There it stands, 4 years later.

Now what to make of that?

I get that you think it's all a set of bad decisions, and you are entitled to your point of view. But here's the crucial thing: WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy here. It's absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia that this is how decisions are made. There are plenty of en.wp decisions which I think are daft or destructive, and I'm sure that most editors have their own set of decisions they dislike. Nobody forces anyone to agree with the consensus, or to like it; just to accept the consensus until it is overturned.

Editors who disagree with a consensus decision are quite entitled to use the review mechanism to contest it. If that fails, they are entitled to open a new discussion after appropriate delay. And at all times, they are free to express their views on each others talk pages, or to use Wikipedia to publish essays criticising the status quo. This is a very open framework: decisions are not set in stone, and editors can speak freely.

But there is one thing editors are forbidden to about an decision they disagree with: they are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Don't drag the grievance into other processes and don't do tit-for-tat disruption. That's a necessary rule in any group or project, because without it, no issue is ever settled.

So what has happened here?

What happened is that some editors decided not to do things the usual way. They didn't use WP:DRV to review the discussion. They didn't launch an RFC to change the guidelines or policies. Y'know, all the normal stuff which editors routinely do to try to overturn a decision they don't like. they didn't do that.

Instead, they created a fake category, as redlinks on their userpages. Now, I'll happily concede that most (maybe all) of them didn't know that this caused technical problems, so I'll come back to that. But what they did know was that they were refusing to either accept a consensus decision or use the normal processes to try to change it. That's mild version of the syndrome described in climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. It's not a constructive approach.

Now, in the last few months the editors who clean up redlinks have made it clear how these deliberate redlinks impede their work. I wasn't aware of it myself until then, and having had redlinks on my userpage for a decade I promptly removed them. Why I would I want to impede maintenance of the encyclopedia which we are all here to build?

It has been interesting explaining this other editors. Some of them say, "ah, getcha", and happily remove the redlinks, because they do not want to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point".

Some object. It's interesting to see the ladder of responses. There are those like EdChem who are open and friendly and willing to discuss it, but still insisting that some disruption of Wikipedia is appropriate to make their point. Maybe they get one or two Spiderman points.

Then there are those who respond with hostility, refusing to even consider that the disruption might be an issue they should consider. That dismissal of the WP:POINT principle earns them a lot more Spiderman points.

And then, shimmering away right at the top of the Reichstag with a record haul of Spiderman points, we have Roxy the dog, who is so deeply offended by the technical kludge to turn a redlinks blue and remove the maintenance hassle that they promptly create new redlinks to continue the disruption. That's WP:POINT in spades.

Consensus isn't perfect. It's often deeply flawed. But it can change. Meanwhile, this looks like a group of at most a few dozen very vocal editors who have a problem with accepting decisions which go against their wishes and feel entitled to ignore WP:POINT. Some of them sadly persist in the notion that there is some sort of CFD conspiracy against them, even though there was huge participation the second "not a Wikipedian" CFD, and it was closed by an editor who very rarely appears at CFD ... and even tho the complainers chose not to open a DRV.

We'll see where this one lands. But whatever the outcome, I will accept the consensus. It would be nice to be able to feel some confidence that others would do likewise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (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.