- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Included in this nomination are:
- Category: Wikipedians by service award
- Category:Wikipedia Signators
- Category:Wikipedia Burbas
- Category:Wikipedia Novatos
- Category:Wikipedia Grognards
- Category:Wikipedia Grognard Extraordinaires
- Category:Wikipedia Grognard Mirabilaires
- Category:Wikipedia Tutnums
- Category:Wikipedia Grand Tutnums
- Category:Wikipedia Most Perfect Tutnums
- Category:Wikipedia Tutnum of the Encyclopedias
- Category:Wikipedia Labutnums
- Category:Wikipedia Most Pluperfect Labutnums
- Category:Wikipedia Labutnum of the Encyclopedias
- Category:Wikipedia Illustrious Looshpahs
- Category:Wikipedia Auspicious Looshpahs
- Category:Wikipedia Redoubtable Tognemes
Delete all - First, I'll go through the history of these categories as I believe that background is important for this nomination. The first iteration of these categories, I believe, were nominated for deletion in October 2007, resulting in delete. In November 2010, another iteration of these categories were created and subsequently speedy deleted per G4. These speedy deletions were brought to deletion review, resulting in relisting at CfD. This CfD resulted, once again, in deletion. Finally, just last month in October 2011, a third iteration of these categories had been created and brought to CfD. Apparently nobody who participated in the discussion or the admin who closed it were aware that all of these categories qualified for G4 speedy deletion at the time. That CfD, however, ended up resulting in a rename.
Needless to say, this is bothersome. I wholeheartedly agree that consensus can change, but I believe such a determination would have to be brought up in deletion review, not CfD again. Nonetheless, since the "latest" deletion discussion no longer results in these categories being deleted, G4 deletion is no longer an option, so I think the only real option right now is to bring this discussion here or at DRV. And since no deletions have actually occurred, this seems like the best venue although I'm still bothered by the thought that these were created out of process.
All that being said, I believe we got it right the first couple times at CfD resulting in these categories being deleted. The standard for keeping user categories on Wikipedia is that categories need to have an encyclopedia-benefiting use to be kept. That is, to say, that specifically grouping a type of user would be beneficial to the encyclopedia for someone to search through a list of such users to seek them out for such an encyclopedia-benefiting use.
No such use can be had from any of these categories. Nobody is specifically going to be looking for a Wikipedia Tutnum, for example, for some sort of encyclopedic purpose. Even if some legitimate reason were found, I'd imagine someone would be hard pressed to seek out a "Tutnum" vs, say, a "Grand Tutnum". At the very minimum there is no reason to distinguish each individual award level in its own category for an encyclopedic purpose. The only thing these awards distinguish is number of edits and number of years having been registered. There would be no encyclopedic reason to go specifically seek out someone in these categories that I can think of. WP:USERCAT makes it clear that these user categories are innapropriate.
The awards themselves are not an issue. Nobody is out to delete those here. User categories, unlike Wikipedia space content such as the awards themselves, have different standards from Wikipedia space. That is, to say, that stuff that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia is inappropriate when it comes to categories. There are numerous other arguments made in the past deletion discussions that I encourage anyone interested to read, but in my book the issue really boils down to these categories simply violating WP:USERCAT - To quote from the lead paragraph, "...Considering the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site or personal webhost, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia."
While for me that is the crux of the issue, I will also quote User:Black Falcon's nomination rationale from the November 2010 nomination, as he does a good job of presenting further arguments for deletion:
- In my view, there are four distinct but not unrelated reasons to delete the categories:
- Categorizing users by number of edits and time served is arbitrary and uninformative. The cutoff thresholds for the Service Award levels are arbitrary numbers (e.g., 12,000 edits and 2½ years served), so the distinction between a Senior Editor and a Master Editor, for example, is also defined arbitrarily. In addition, number of edits and time served provide little meaningful information about a user—they say nothing about a user's interests, knowledge, willingness or ability to collaborate or the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia. For these reasons, and also because of how users used the userboxes—many used multiple userboxes and, thus, were in multiple categories, and a number used userboxes indicating 10 or more years of service (i.e., before Wikipedia was created)—categorization by Service Award level is not informative.
- Categorizing users by "level" or status creates a false sense of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Identifying some users "Senior Editors" or "Master Editors" and others as "Novice Editors" or "Apprentice Editors" implies a hierarchy which does not exist. I realize that the userboxes do this anyway, but categorization is a step even beyond that. Users are free to declare almost anything about themselves on their user pages via userboxes, but creating a grouping of users (which is what a category does) based on "level" gives more formality to what otherwise would be an informal declaration. In my opinion, this runs counter to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
- Categorizing users by Service Award level does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. User categories are intended primarily to group users by characteristics which could facilitate coordination and collaboration between editors. Service Award level is not such a characteristic. Also, user categories are meant to be browsed, not merely to be bottom-of-the-page supplements to userboxes, and there is little or no reason that anyone would need to or benefit from browsing categories of users grouped by arbitrary threshholds of edit count and time served.
- For the stated reasons, and per the weight of previous precedent and consensus (user categories which group users by activity, including Cat:Wikipedians by number of edits, or awards are routinely deleted; see here and here for a list of related discussions), I believe that the Service Awards categories should remain deleted.
VegaDark (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As the closer of the previous nomination, I can say I was aware of the previous nominations. The discussion was clearly split, so instead of creating another situation where they would be recreated yet again, I gave them what I thought was the proper naming structure and sent them to their own container category. I have no objection to the discussion being opened again, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 2#Users by service award. As the nominator there, I'm still convinced that these categories should be cdeleted. I fail to see how this information is important enough for coordination and collaboration between users. There is no possible question I can think of that one would ask a Grand Tutnum but not a Grognard Extraordinaire (several ranks below), nor vica versa. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, with added salt At the risk of seeming like a fly-by delete-voter, I have to agree with the above comments especially the nom and that made by Old Mishehu. The arguments are sound. Also, speaking from my own experience, if I'm at all curious about an editor's level of expertise in editing WP, I look at their talk page (e.g. number of warnings, or collaboration style); check whether they're an admin, reviewer etc (degree of trust given by community); and check when they established their account; among several other methods. There are many, and better, indicators of WP expertise, especially when considered all together. Categorising users by "service award" does not, in my experience, do the job for which it seems to have been intended. I also suggest salting, but dependent on the relative strength of the arguments offered in favour of deleting. ClaretAsh 12:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does anyone use these to navigate? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. The categories themselves serve no purpose I can see (anyone care to refute?) other than needlessly cluttering up the Categories section. Nikthestoned 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - This has the encyclopedia-benefiting feature of allowing serious content creators to find other serious content creators without having to parse the list of millions of registered accounts. Elimination of these categories makes not sense at all, this does not clog up anything, they are a set of backstage, user-page categories. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument doesn't stand under its own weight. If the purpose is for "serious content creators" to find each other, then there are far more accurate ways to achieve this, some of which I alluded to above. This is especially the case when we consider that the service awards only group people by account age and edit count, neither of which indicate degree of WP expertise. Also, as many serious Wikipedists do not use the categories (either directly, or indirectly via the userbox), and possibly do not intend to use them, the categories will never be so useful. ClaretAsh 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What SHOULD happen, by the way, is that the silly names should be abandoned in favor of the serious names ("Master Editor," etc.). Carrite (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you there. I added a service award userbox to my userpage ages ago but specifically set it not to show the silly names (Apparently, I'm now a yeoman editor). Imagine my surprise and annoyance when I found it had automatically added me to the "Grognard Extraordinaire" category. That's how I discovered this discussion. If the discussion is closed in favour of keeping the cats, I'd support changing their names or having the silly names as redirects to the not-so-silly alternatives. ClaretAsh 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Everyone here has missed a very obvious flaw in the entire discussion: Editors don't need to qualify to put themselves in these categories, they can just flippantly add themselves to varying levels of "expertise" by putting "Category:Wikipedia ThisOrThat" on the bottom of their own userpages. I guarantee that if you went through and legitimately verified whether some of these editors do, in fact, qualify for the ranks they placed themselves in, a solid ⅓ to ½ don't meet necessary edit counts and time as registered users. Hence, if I wanted to look for a respected or knowledgeable editor on Wikipedia, I bet Category:Wikipedia Most Perfect Tutnums would be one of the least reliable places to actually look. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately true. And as it happens, it was mentioned earlier in item 1 of the quote from Black Falcon, in the last part of the nom. ClaretAsh 07:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah ok. I'm not saying get rid of the userboxes for these (e.g. Senior Editor III Userbox), because even though the qualifications are arbitrary doesn't mean they shouldn't be kept. I rather like the idea of "earning" one's way up the ranks, it is something I've looked forward to updating every 6 months for the past couple of years (I've now reached the point where it will take another full year before "moving up"). It's kind of like a video game, and it provides incentive. For that reason alone I think the userboxes are worth keeping. The categories, however, are a different story, and I'm more inclined to say get rid of them because they add nothing of value to the achievements and only serve as category clutter. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, per above. The naming convention is meaningless and impenetrable to newcomers anyway. Let's not have practices that pointlessly make Wikipedia editing seem strange and inaccessible to others. bd2412 (Illustrious Looshpah) T 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Any categorisation scheme that places Jimbo no higher than a veteran editor is fundamentally flawed. ClaretAsh 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all per nom and Salt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.