Commons talk:User categories

New proposal

Hey. Just created this proposal in an attempt to form a uniform style of user categories for Commons. Please feel free to propose modifications. Rehman 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've some comments:

• This is redundant and/or in conflict to an existing policy.
• I would like to see some freedom in regard to the chosen name. Many users have an attribution which differs from the user name. In such cases it may be preferable to name the category after the name used for the attribution, not after the user name.
• It is far from easy to automate the enforcement of a uniform style as such categories are often buried in user templates and quite some users have hierarchies of such categories.

In summary, I do not know which problem is going to be solved here. Uniformness in itself is not necessarily an advantage. This is particularly true in case of hidden categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the the comments of AFBorchert above, but nevertheless, we must find stricter rules as to avoid confusion with main category (and gallery) space. Just an example, if a user is called FBI, NASA or KGB, Wikileaks, ... he cannot create galleries or categories that give the impression that they are categories/galleries that belong to the main space and are formal organisations. Same applies for names that try to promote things or are anti-xxx movements, such as "Zil against Israel", "Docu for presidant campaign", "MB-one nature protection program", "AFB Palestine liberation", --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable and I would agree to such an amendment of the existing policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is, this proposal would never pass. Many users categorise their files by type, quality label & al. Enforcing this would result in a lot of unnecessary drama for little benefit. The initial proposal on the VP, harmonising the naming of top-level user categories, seems more sensible to me. Not sure we need a dedicated policy for that, though, this could go under COM:USER. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs, I agree. I created this proposal assuming that it is not ok to modify an existing policy. So if you all think modifying the existing is okay, then great! ;) So, based on the above, the changes to the existing proposal would be:

1. All UserCats should be named as Category:Files by User:Example
2. Subcategories are allowed
3. Only a single parent category per username is allowed
4. Subcategories should be named as "Category:Files by User:Example (PDFs)
5. UserCats should be created by the user this category is created for
6. Works of others, or uploads of new versions, uploaded by the user, should not be categorized into a UserCat

The fourth is a new proposal. I think subcategories in this format (with a "Files by User:Example" prefix made compulsory), would greatly reduce confusion. The "Category:Files by User:Example" would reduce confusion whether it's a real name or the username. Of course, the user could mention whatever they need (real name, etc) within the category. Comments on further changes? Rehman 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks better. I think 2, 3, 5 reflect actual practice and fall under common sense. Probably will not make a fuss.

• As for 2 :
  • I echo Docu concerns on the VP. Some users want to use their real name (eg Category:Images by Marcin Szala for User:Pudelek). We better leave them do that.
  • As for the User: prefix, I do not really care, but fact is many users did not use it and may not like it (yeah, I am really trying to avoid drama ;-)
  • Last point, I noticed many categories with the patternCategory:Files fy User:Example from xx.wikipedia. What about those?
• 4 : Category:Quality images by user seems to indicate standard practice is Category:Quality images by John Doe. No need to change that I think.
• 6 : I really do not get why, but some users seem to have categories like Category:Files transferred by User:Jeff G. from Flickr, which goes against 6. What should we do ? Jean-Fred (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Will be off to work now, will respond when I get back, please don't mind. Kind regards. Rehman 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For points:

• 1A and 1B (real names): I think we should only allow (and thus making drama) the use of User:Files by User:Example (aka, not real name), for the sake of consistency. The user could always add whatever the information in their category, in big bold letters if they may.
• 1C: Same as above, we should enforce a standard format of UserCats.
• 2: I think such categories are better off in the subcat-form of Category:Files by User:Example (QIs), or Category:Files by User:Example (Quality Images), or etc.
• 3: As for point 3, I think such categories shouldn't be allowed. I mean, if everyone starts creating such categories, we would probably have more UserCats than anything else. And imaging having multiple sources: Flickr, NASA, USGS, ect. And if anyone really wants to see a gallery of all their uploaded images, they could simply use this tool... Category:Photos massaged by User:Jeff G.?!?

What do you guys think? Green light to make the changes to the existing policy? Rehman 03:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In March 2007, I created Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G. (along with some of its children) and filed it in Category:User galleries. Later edits sorted and hid that categorization. I like to distinguish between my files, subset images, and further subset photos, as well as whether I massaged or just transferred them. I have tried to be open about this; User:Jeff G.#My_Categories has been a part of my user page here since October 2007. That having been written, this project page has been redirected to Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. I think from what we discussed above, you could still keep all your categories, although most of them might have to be renamed to something like:

• Category:Files by User:Jeff G.
  • Category:Files by User:Jeff G. (PDFs)
  • Category:Files by User:Jeff G. (retouched images)

Or anything else with the prefix "Files by User:Jeff G."... Rehman 09:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My problem with "by" in what you presented above is that it implies authorship; I am not the exclusive author of the majority of my categories (or the files in them), so I would not want to mislead anyone into believing that I am.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, I think we should not user-categorize files that are not by the categorizing user. For example, you cannot categorize files I created/authored into your category, even if you made fixes. If we allow this, most popular files would probably have more UserCats than standard categories... Rehman 08:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If such categories are hidden, why would that present a problem?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though a category is "hidden", it is actually hidden only when viewing files or a category-tree, other than that, it is visible everywhere else: Special:Upload, Special:UploadWizard, CatScans, etc etc... Rehman 09:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed policy

Being bold, I have changed the current policy per above. Please post any objections/comments below. Thanks. Rehman 10:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall, an improvement, but I do not agree with the specific example of adding a parenthesis with, eg. (QIs). We have a category Quality images by user, and it is logical, also when doing searches and the automatic lookup, that user specific versions of these are named, e.g., Quality images by User:Slaunger, Valued images by User:Slaunger, Featured pictures by User:Slaunger. --Slaunger (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I didn't see those categories... Will change it now... Rehman 10:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Did some changes. But looking at those parent categories you linked above, it seems like even within those categories, there seem to be some names which are no similar to the rest. Do you think it is a better idea to go with a universal style like:

• Category:Files by User:Example
  • Category:Files by User:Example (images)
    • Category:Files by User:Example (QIs)
    • Category:Files by User:Example (VPs)
    • Category:Files by User:Example (FPs)

--Rehman 11:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted most of the changes.

You should copy the section to this proposal page and let us work here, until we get something like a consensus. This discussion was not even mentioned on the guideline talk page, so the changes came out of the blue for most users. An official guideline should be used to document consensus, not as a draft to discuss.

--LPfi (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I copied the contents myself, first current, then proposed content, so that diffs can be used. I should probably have used the last years' version, I hope the first changes were uncontroversial. --LPfi (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I should've done this instead; makes sense. Rehman 12:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I am fine with the categories of Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G.. The only restriction I consider usefull is that in each user category name, the "user:xxx" appears as to always distinguish user categories from normal categories. I don't think other restrictions are helpful. --Foroa (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User category restrictions

I think that:

• the number of user categories and trees should be restricted. Their parallel categorisation scheme, often different from the main Commons one, can be quite confusing. Example: the 300 subcategories in Category:Images by Juan R. Lascorz and catscan
• same here, but even more problematic as user mistypes often, had several unlinked categories, creates redirects for them and uses the undocumented features of {{Usercat}} to define the categories (even in files), which makes it impossible to bot move them. --Foroa (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the only effective way to really separate usercats from other categories, to avoid confusion, it by naming the category with the prefix Category:Files by User:Example. And as for the number of sub-usercats, I can't think of a meaningful limit, maybe a round figure of 50 or 100 maybe? 300 is definitely a ridiculous amount. Rehman 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the "Category:Files by Name" is OK, when Name is the real name of the user (or a well known pseudonym used in traditional publishing) and the user maintains it like an author category (and does not get upset when others do). Then the distinction between user categories and normal author categories is not that important. Should a recognized photographer put his own images in the user category while others put them in the author category? Or should he wait until somebody else (a sock puppet?) creates the author category? Or until there is a Wikipedia article about him (in a language he has professionally relevant connections to)?

As for number of categories I think one need to use sound judgement. Is there a problem with a large but functional category tree (the tree of User:Juan R. Lascorz seems overambitious, but creating good schemes is not easy)? I think there should be no need for redirects and of course the categories should be maintained with due care. But the last point does not change with number of categories, and a few users being careless or using too many categories is hardly a big problem on Commons (rigid rules can be a real problem). Some recommendations could be useful, though.

--LPfi (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the structure in my category tree, and it's now consisting of only 10 categories. If you accept an advice from someone who has been taken as an example of what should not be done, expose some recommendations. For example, I had never thought of using galleries before, and it's a very good idea that simply had never come to my mind. So, I'm pretty sure that there must be others simply ignoring useful solutions suchs as that, or some similar to it, that you may have in mind :). --Lascorz (Talk) 10:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehension. We are all learning while building such a large system. A couple of comments though:

• You expanded some categories to include a substantial gallery part. It might be much easier to isolate the gallery part in a proper gallery, so that it can used/categorised on other places too. This would equally avoid scrolling down when you want to see the items contained in the category (categories should have less than one screen page of intro).
• When using the commonist tool for downloading, it creates/maintains a gallery automatically for you.
• Thank you for your advice: I agree (for exactly the same reason, I started the subject here). --Foroa (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this proposal failed and we have a perfectly good guideline at Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy, unless there is objection, I am going to redirect this page to that policy. Leaving it here as failed policy gives the impression we have no policy on User categories, when, in fact, we have a fairly strong one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)