Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index

Index of UCFD precedents

Largely due to various recent discussions regarding the use of precedent at WP:UCFD, I've created an index of UCFD precedents at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index, which you may find useful. The index is still incomplete, but already it includes about 400 discussions grouped into 24 sections and 31 subsections. It currently covers July 2007 - present, and I intend to add June 2007 in the next 24 hours, as a number of important discussions took place during that month. I may continue to systemtically extend the scope beyond that, but it would be at a much more gradual pace.

If you think it's a useful tool, feel free to add or remove entries as appropriate, and to modify the categorisation scheme. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok , I'll say it:

WOW!

Needless to say, I'm sure that a fair amount of work went into that.

I've only three suggestions atm:

Split the -N discussions to their own section (they're scattered in several sections)
Split the cats by physical technology (hardware) to their own section from "by software".
And, unless you'd prefer it in your userspace, move the page to: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index

Again: Nice work : ) - jc37 10:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(You may also want to check out User:ProveIt/index.) - jc37 11:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt's index for CFD was actually my inspiration for the page; I created a separate page because I didn't want to flood a page intended primarily for CFD precedents with a few hundred links to UCFD archives. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll go ahead and make those changes (with regard to #2, I'd essentially placed any computer-related discussion under the "by software" heading, which isn't really accurate). Once I've added June 2007, I'll move the page to your suggested subpage of WP:UCFD. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished adding June 2007 and did some more reorganisation (including the two splits that you suggested). Would you mind taking another look at the page to see if any sections need merging or splitting, or if any sections are missing, before I move it to project-space? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen/MuVo = electronic device (Mp3 players)

and move hardware to ownership. (software is its own thing, somewhere between video games and programming languages, I guess?)

Change By individual to fans (and move sports teams uder it)

and move dislikes Bush to political ideology and/or support/oppose

orbiter (sim) is software

zone is a gaming website

pornstar Wikipedians was a nonsense cat (and there are probably more such cats throughout)

probably put personal, and userpage project under a parent header?

Are you sorry you asked yet? : ) - jc37 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Well, for now at least ... that "yet" seems awfully ominous ;)

Re: "who dislike George W. Bush": I've moved that entry to the "support/oppose" section per your suggestion; I've not listed it in the political ideology section as Bush is the subject of dislike by people of many different ideologies.

Re: "who play Zone": I'd forgotten that MSN Games used to be Zone.com; I've relocated the entry.

Re: "Porn Star Wikipedians": Ah, yes, that was the one with the mutated pirate ninja academic and the pillaging Pastafarian. :) There are a few others that might qualify under the "nonsense/joke" label – Jesus freak Wikipedians, Pyromaniac Wikipedians, and so on – it's difficult to be certain now that the categories have been emptied. In any case, quite a few categories that were probably being used as joke categories – such as the one for pyromaniacs – were treated (and deleted) as if they were serious; the "Porn Star" category was, of course, an exception.

I'll go ahead and move it to project-space. If you can think of any additional improvements or spot any errors, please go ahead and change the page or let me know so that I may. Thanks again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe "all done" was a bit premature. I had decided to postpone a change to the "by individual" section, but forgot about it by the end. I'm not entirely sure what to call the section: on the one hand, it includes mostly "fans of ..." categories; on the other, categories like Category:Wikipedians interested in Prem Rawat would also fit there. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make you nervous with the use of "yet" : )

Looks great, btw : )

Since you made the move, I dabbed all the links and deleted the cross-space redirect.

Is "unsorted" meant to be eventually sorted, or just a jumble of misc?

And finally, while I know I could be bold (and I "think" you said something above), I would like to ask anyway: Do you care if I ReOrg a bit? (Mostly to shuffle the order of the headers.)

Have I mentioned how cool this page is? : ) - jc37 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the cross-namespace links.

I initially created the "unsorted" section as a temporary holding place, but even from the start it began to resemble a "miscellanea" section. I kept it around mostly because it contained a number of group discussions ("by peer-to-peer network", "by internet access", "by Myers-Briggs type", "by mobile service") that might be worth keeping in the list. Still, it's hard to claim that a discussion had a precedent-affecting outcome without being able to state what the precedent is. Perhaps some could be stuck into various nooks of the current classification scheme?

"European Union categories" – a mixed ethnicity/location discussion
"User Katamari Fortissimo Damacy" – a category for a soundtrack that might fit in the by ownership section, but could just as well be removed
"Wikipedians who have been arrested" – by lifestyle seems to be the closest, but being arrested once is not necessarily indicative of a lifestyle
"Wikipedians who play practical jokes" – nonsense/joke, maybe?
"Wikipedians who use Bluetooth technology" – by computer hardware, perhaps
"Wikipedians who use Unicode" – no idea
"Wikipedians who use wireless connections"
"Wikipedian zodiac skeptics" – by philosophy seems the closest match, thought the category scope may be too narrow
"Wikipedians by peer-to-peer network"
"Wikipedians by internet access"
"Wikipedians who are ex-cadets"
"Wikipedians with World Citizenship" – by philosophy or by political ideology
"Wikipedians with Cubes of Ultimate Power" – nonsense/joke
"Wikipedians who summarize"
"Wikipedians by Myers-Briggs type" – by birth or by lifestyle seem to be the most suited, but I don't want to start a nature versus nurture debate
"Wikipedians by mobile service"
"Wikipedians who collect Hello Kitties" – by ownership
"Wikipedians who have experienced Blue Screens of Death" – nonsense? software? hardware?
"Wikipedians who obsess over grammar" – by preference, though I don't know that obsession can be called a matter of preference
"Wikipedians who sign their posts" – by preference, I guess...
"Wikipedians who use userboxes for statistical reasons" – by preference
"Television Station categories" – by preference seems to be the only place, but it's an awkward fit
"Wikipedians who watch Sky News" – by preference, as above
"Wikipedians in Zhejiang China" – a location/birth category that resulted in a semi-procedural keep, could be removed
"Public domain license" – could be removed
"Wikipedians by access to sources" – no idea
"More WikiProject participants" – I kept this around for the precedent against "friends of X" categories, but the discussion is probably too mixed to merit inclusion
"Structural Realist Wikipedians" – somewhere in the middle of by philosophy or by political ideology, probably leaning toward the former

And finally, reorganise away ... :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I discovered this quite by chance today; why have you been keeping this a secret? (grin) This is incredibly useful for UCFD discussions. Horologium (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, oops? Consider me adequately chagrined. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, this is really nice to have. I will be happy when this records UCFDs from before June 2007- I always find myself looking back through months to find specific debates, knowing it would be much nicer to just do a search on this page for them. A recommendation I have, if someone has the time, is to eventually go through the logs of regular UCFD admins to see who has deleted user categories as recreation of substantially similar content (but don't have the same exact name). I find myself making deletions such as these fairly often, as people seem to think that simply rewording a category gets them around a UCFD result. There wouldn't be a way to link to the debate, but one could link to the deletion log. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

topic confusion

For some of these I understand the logic of making this page. However, it can certainly give the wrong impression about certain types. It may be logical to group them by topic like this, but for many of them, the topic/type itself wasn't problematic, but might have several listings. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying "sexuality or gender identification" under "lifestyle"?

It is somewhat offensive to LGBT people to have "sexuality or gender identification" classified under "lifestyle". I would be bold and just move it to "Demographic information", but I'm not sure if there are automatic processes involved here that might break. - htonl (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]