Commons:Requests for comment/User categories

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No consensus (no comments have been made for almost four months). The results of the two main questions of this RFC largely contradict each other:

User categories need to be identifiable as such (31 participants)	65%	35%
Only notable persons may have categories with their name (14 participants)	13%	88%

Both a clear distinction between user and content category structures and equal treatment of Commons users and external content creators were commonly expressed desires.

Due to the lack of general support for such a harmonisation measure, no uniform category scheme proposal will be implemented. Changes to Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories#Categories have been made in accordance with the outcome of the respective sub-proposals.

FDMS 4 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion.
The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it.

Even though user categories are hidden for most people, they are still visible to some extent. For example, Google finds them with a pretty good search rank. That's why it is important to have a common understanding on how user categories are named.

Please note that the three votings below are evaluated individually.

User categories need to be identifiable as such edit

A user category needs to be easily identifiable as such by readers, even by lusers. (Addition on January 24: It's about the naming of user categories, not the use of {{User category}}.)
Examples for badly named categories (I apologize for the exposed users) that are suggested not to be allowed any longer:

Category:Odder (user category of User:Odder, not of the Danish town Odder)
Category:Jömi(201002) (user category of User:Joergens.mi for pictures taken in February 2010)
Category:Arms of Other People and Institutions of Canada (user category of User:A1 Aardvark)
Category:Nevit Dilmen Proteins (user category of User:Nevit, not of a type of proteins (despite of being categorized into Category:Proteins))
Category:Nemo Chile (user category of User:Nemo, not of the company Nemo Chile)
Category:PeliMedia (user category of User:Pelikana)
Category:P4b Hymenoptera (user category of User:Arp, not of some type of insects)
Category:Paris by Mith (user category of User:Mith, not related to “Paris by night”)
Category:Aircraft registrations (several operators) (user category of User:JotaCartas)
Category:Heilig Kreuz (Großried) 2012 (user category of User:Joergens.mi)

Votes edit

Support --Leyo 21:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, by which I mean that an image's author category should make it clear that it is an author category, not a general category (as in the examples above). It does not necessarily mean that "Commons user categories" need to be distinguishable from "Famous photographer categories". --Sebari (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I think I understood the question wrong. I agree that the examples above are not correctly named. I do not necessarily think that the word "user" needs to be part of user categories. "Photos by Firstname Lastname" etc. would be fine, too. --Sebari (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At a very minimum, this should be made obvious. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support exception: real names, of course --Sargoth (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am a human being. My Name is "Marcus Cyron". Not "User:Marcus Cyron". It's a sighn of missing respect, wanna make me just to a "User" - by the way, I'm not a "User", I am a giver. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that you signed this statement with [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]]? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you understood the question differently than I did, although it is ambiguously worded. I don't think this question is about the exact wording of user categories (whether the word "user" is part of the category or not), but about whether "author" categories can be distinguished from "subject" categories. I might be mistaken, though. --Sebari (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Sebari. Marcus Cyron seems not to have distinguished the individual questions (that are not directly related) of this RfC. --Leyo 00:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a disambiguation, like "Marcus Cyron (Wikipedian)", Marcus Cyron (Commons contributor), or Marcus Cyron (User:Marcus Cyron)". --ghouston (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus will be surprised to learn that authorities usually permit first names that result in identically named, different humans, while the user name is an identifier. Nonetheless, this isn't the point of this section. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reject It is unclear what 'easily identifiable' means. The section lists some badly named categories. Is a category 'easily identifiable' if it is properly named, or is a category with any name 'easily identifiable' if {{User category}} is used? Some of the categories use that template, some don't. Unclear proposals should be rejected and sent back to the drawing table. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contra Is this realy the most important problem in the Wikipedia ?!? --Elmie (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC) some users helped me to realise that I am not allowed to write down my opions; I feel sorry that I am su stupid [reply]
Neutral not sure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - because otherwise we permit categories like "Photographs by Barack Obama" by a user who may or may not be called Barack Obama in real life, as long as we don't have any photographs by the US president to categorise. --ghouston (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ralf Roleček 00:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another senseless time-eating survey. Initiators for something like that should be punished.--Hubertl 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ich kann keinen Bedarf erkennen. --Mogelzahn (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chaddy (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problem with Category:Vasya Pupkin for User:Vasya Pupkin whose real name is Vasya Pupkin; but a problem with Category:Kuschelmaus83 for User:Kuschelmaus83 whose real name is not Kuschelmaus83. --A.Savin 17:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written: It may be reasonable for usernames, but the rules should be the same whether I upload the work to another site, which is then brought here, or work from here. Quite simply, we want to encourage people to upload the highest-resolution images they have here, not put them somewhere else where they may be shrunk down or be less accessible, or be watermarked. That means not changing our users' real names, when we wouldn't think of doing that for anyone else. I am not User:Adam Cuerden, I am Adam Cuerden. If the problem is that a category is confusing, or inappropriate, then I'd think our regular category rules forbid it already. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support/ Neutral Leave the church in the village. If some "users" needs more respect and have a clear name, then made a exception (otherwise not). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope that someday we will have database based tags in our media repository saying "this is an image created by ..." or "this is an image uploaded by ..." and that display can be modified by the user. Until that we need some restrictions to avoid misunderstandings. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support After thoughtful, no problem, even a good idea Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a no-brainer --Studmult (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --He3nry (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Stefan2's comment. --.js^{[democracy needed]} 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XaviYuahanda (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure. --Valentim (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be no question.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Naturellement. Braveheart (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael F. Schönitzer 15:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'm sympathetic to the principle but it's unclear what "easily identifiable as such by readers" actually means, per Stefan2. I certainly would not support mandating that user categories start with "User:" or similar. CT Cooper · talk 22:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lena1 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current mess makes Commons looking unprofessionally. (Among thousands of other issues, of course.) -- Rillke^(q?) 17:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Euku:^⇄ 16:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, the category:User:Odder solved the issue for category:Odder Kommune, but actually Category:Jömi(201002) and the former category:Odder already have as first line an info about their purpose, and belong to Category:User categories (flat list) or Category: Wikipedians in Poland, so that's identifiable enough. Be..anyone (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My name is my name --Roland Kutzki (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't need any categorie by User. --MAyo (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Category:Images by Marcus Cyron is what I use and it's a hidden cat. Is this enought "identifiable"? Category:Images by User:Marcus Cyron I would not like. Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but your parent user category, Category:Marcus Cyron, would need to be renamed to Category:User:Marcus Cyron (assuming you are not notable) if the third question below is being accepted. --Leyo 03:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: It's (obviously) about the name only. Category:Arms of Other People and Institutions of Canada for example contains {{User category}}, but this does not make it easily identifiable as user category by readers. The fact that it resides in Category:User categories (flat list) is not at all eye-catching. I don't think I should edit a running RfC. Do you think differently? What about adding a more detailed specification using a ref tag or so? --Leyo 00:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description is unclear about what it refers to. When a proposal is unclear, it's typically better to reject the proposal and send it back to have it fixed as unclear proposals are more likely to give unexpected results. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's also clear enough as it is now. It is only about the naming as COM:USERCAT says These subcategories must be categorised under the user's main category with {{User category|cat=subcategory}}. --Leyo 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't clearly stated when voting started. I see that you later made an amendment, but it's unclear how the users who commented above interpreted the question. It is clear from the above that Marcus Cyron interpreted the question in one way but that Srittau interpreted it in another way. A question which is unclear should be sent back, fixed and re-proposed, with no votes being placed before the question has been fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I demonstrated above, it was already clear from the beginning. Marcus just demonstrates against question three (concerning notability) at every possible location. --Leyo 20:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have near the same point of view as for the user names, a user should have the right to chose the user category name he want, however there is an issue when there is a notable people/place... with the same name, the user should clearly notify that this is a user category. User name policy : "If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person".
It will be better if {{User category}} do not hide the category but notify the visitor at the head of the category page : "This is a category for the User:TheThing" or another similar text. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I say is compatible with any proposals that there is here and can resolve the issue for who want big letters for their categories :) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another idea could be to have a User category: namespace on Commons. And you could create all categories with all names you want insofar they respect guidelines...that is not a so bad idea... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In another hand to use an uniform category scheme as "Category:User:Username" is a bit the same thing if the principle is respected. I know, I know I talk alone as often.... good evening...Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't replied to yourself, I would have written something similar. Your idea would IMHO be another potential option. Just as a side note, the uniform category scheme, where the namespace is added after “Category:”, is applied in de-WP successfully. For user categories, the root is Benutzer: (“Benutzer” = user). --Leyo 21:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform category scheme edit

A uniform category scheme is applied:

All main user categories are Category:User:Username
Accordingly, categories for users from Flickr etc. may be named Category:Flickr user:Username or similar.

Subcategories – Option A edit

User subcategories follow the same scheme.
They are for example:

Category:User:Username/Photographs
Category:User:Username/Restorations

Votes edit

Support --Leyo 21:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as simple; fine with "Option B" too. J e e 02:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support kiss --Sargoth (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No. Why should be Category:Images by Marcus Cyron less correct? And have you ever thought about the possibly millions of moves just because of such an strange idea of uniformity? Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contra In my point of view a not practical suggestion because of tons of work like Marcus Cyron wrote before. And by the way: Is this realy the most important problem in the Wikipedia ?!? --Elmie (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) some users helped me to realise that I am not allowed to write down my opions; I feel sorry that I am su stupid [reply]
Oppose per Marcus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's reasonable that people may want to use their real name in a category, which may not have any relationship to their user name. --ghouston (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Chaddy (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, users of Commons should not be punished for being users by being treated differently by the categorization scheme. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It makes something more clear (this has nothing to do with respect PS: "Who demands more than ordinary respect, does not deserve even the ordinary." ―Johann Gottfried Seume). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support keep it simple --Studmult (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What if a user already has consistently named user categories? Consider Category:Building-centered pictures by User:Nyttend, for example — right now the name is natural English, and there's no question from the name that it's a user category. What would you make it: "Category:User:Nyttend/Buildings"? "Category:User:Nyttend/Building-centered pictures"? Something else? And as noted by Marcus Cyron, this proposal would require a large number of rather pointless moves; if you consider just my user categories, there are 18,591 files that you'd need to edit, and that many files would require a significant amount of time even with HotCat. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Such naming looks awkward and I see no compelling reason to mandate it over names like "Photographs by User:X". CT Cooper · talk 22:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lena1 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Euku:^⇄ 16:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sujalajus (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --MAyo (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

I'd prefer this, but if it's difficult to implement due to existing categories, I'm fine with option B instead. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be feasible to change the existing (sub)categories to the new scheme in a bot-assisted procedure. --Leyo 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is wrong with Category:Images by Marcus Cyron, it's the same idea as a Category:Music by WAMozart, i.e., it's not really a "user category": I could add a file to this category if I think it's an image by Marcus, and somebody else could remove a file from this category if she found a better category, or if it was just wrong. Maybe this RfC needs a clarification. Be..anyone (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories – Option B edit

User subcategories have to contain User:Username.
They are for example:

Category:Photographs by User:Username
Category:Restorations by User:Username

Votes edit

Support after seeing Category:Photographs by photographer and it's sub-categories. This seems a longtime practice; so may difficult to change (to "option A"). J e e 03:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it's not only about photographs somebody shot, but pd uploads, drawings, so forth --Sargoth (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC) changed from oppose, did not see the sub-sub-subcategory proposal[reply]
Oppose - I am not just a "User". A am a human beingt. I deserve respect! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - other means of distinguishing users should be permitted, such as disambiguations. --ghouston (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Chaddy (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Marcus Cyron. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Much better than Option A but still over-regulating in my opinion. CT Cooper · talk 22:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lena1 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support; Bwag (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --MAyo (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Only notable persons may have categories with their name edit

Notability criteria are taken into consideration concerning real-name categories:

If John Doe is notable, i.e. a Wikipedia article (in any language version) may be created about this person, having the Category:John Doe is allowed.
However, if John Doe is “just” a Wikipedia, Commons, Flickr etc. user, having Category:John Doe is not allowed.

Please note that this item does not comprise the question whether or not Category:Xyz … John Doe is allowed.

Votes edit

Support --Leyo 21:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral J e e 02:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Users editing by their real names (identification needed!) may use normal categories. Might be some work but fits for the project. --Sargoth (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Who says, who is notable? No, thanks. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Only notable names can be verified, others should be preemptively disambiguated with a source (such as Commons or Flickr user.) --ghouston (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notable according to what criteria? There are many easily verifiable names of persons (e.g. through authority files) that aren't notable for, for example, English or German Wikipedia. And if you look at a category such as Category:Images from the German Federal Archive by photographer, the notability of most of these photographers is unclear. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaddy (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sargoth. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcus. We should not rely on Wikipedia too much, we should stand with our own feet. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcus Cyron. --Valentim (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree with the above on being overly reliant on Wikipedia. Not to mention, what happens when there are inevitably contradictions between different Wikipedia projects on who is notable and who isn't? My biggest concern though is that the distinction being made is fundamentally arbitrary – people are people, whether they be famous persons, Flickr contributors, Commons contributors, or Wikipedians. Conflicts between people who share the same name are probably best dealt with on a case-by-case basis. CT Cooper · talk 22:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lena1 (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unlike enwiki or similar there is no clear "notability" concept on commons. Be..anyone (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My name is my name--Roland Kutzki (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Sujalajus (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I do not know which notability criteria this option is referring to. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

I understand the logic and intention behind this, but I'm not sure it's a good idea, for a few reasons:

1) There are a *huge* number of categories to group the output of artistic creators (photographers, architects, etc) that don't have wikipedia articles written about them. So certainly having an existing wikipedia article can't be a requirement (and I recognize that's not what's being proposed here.) Yet if we decide we are going to accept the notability criteria of any wikipedia project, then we are effectively choosing the criteria of whichever project has the least stringent criteria, and some wikipedia projects may have little or no notability criteria at all, so where does that get us anyway?

2) Commons is literally filled with categories for specific objects (individual works of art and individual buildings come to mind) that would never be considered notable enough for a wikipedia article of their own, but we're not about to delete them (I don't think). Why exactly are people different?

3) Wikipedia's notability criteria exist to prevent articles being written about those for whom legitimate sources cannot be found, but we're talking about zcategories... a few characters added to the bottom of an existing image, and a category with a few basic details like profession, and dates of birth and death that are usually easy to check. Today I noticed that a photo I uploaded was taken by an 19th-century photographer named Orlando Scott Goff. He doesn't seem particularly notable, but a quick search of commons revealed a number of other photographs taken by him, so I created Category:Orlando Scott Goff. Isn't it useful for someone who sees a photo (or a building) to be able to easily browse the artists' other work (and know the artists's nationality and era) without conducting a keyword search and filtering the results? Do I really need to go and do serious research into this photographer's career and legacy and judge (according to whichever notability criteria) his worthiness before creating a category for him?

4) We're not proposing the deletion of non-notable people, so we'll continue to have photos of non-notable people, presumably in categories like Category:People of X. If a non-notable person appears in a great number of legitimate photographs in an overcrowded Category:People of X, does it not make sense to create a sub-category for that person by name?

I'm certainly not against the first statement of this proposal. Notability should certainly be taken into account concerning real name categories, but I'm not sure it should be the sole criteria. Despite my concerns, I'm not necessarily against this proposal... I'm just not convinced at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we had a system that more or less worked, however it came to be, but because one single user created drama and acted very provocatively about it in the village pump. The whole community has overacted. This seriously rewards uncivilised behavior. It would be my guess that only special or respected users (however you decide to describe it) will in future be allowed to create a drama to make their points. I'm not sure how best to move forward but I do know whatever decision is taken it will almost certainly be a knee jerk one and unlikely to solve anything. It appears that at the moment we have a single user threatening to leave if he does not get his way and everyone else running around desperate to placate him. This is no way to run a project or to make sound decisions. Oxyman (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sargoth: What about allowing Category:User John Doe (note the blank instead of the : between “User” and the real name) for respected users who prefer to have real name user categories? --Leyo 13:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea, Leyo, sounds nicer --Sargoth (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot, cannot have any scheme where Wikipedians are punished for uploading their work themselves. I am NOT User:Adam Cuerden, nor am I User Adam Cuerden. I am Adam Cuerden, and it's only that I donate my work to Commons that puts me at any risk of rename here; were it anywhere else and brought to Commons, this would not be considered. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories#Categories edit

User categories need not be hidden edit

It may be that we want to hide some types of user categories, but this affirms that there is no requirement that all user categories are hidden.

Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info They are currently not hidden, see Commons talk:Requests for comment/User categories#Not hidden. --Leyo 22:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Leyo: "Hidden" is the name of the classification. Until that changes, there's no other way to phrase this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Renaming the subhead "Hidden categories:" to something else may wise. BTW, I like them grouped under a subhead as of now (to separate them from the topic categories). J e e 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with this. To hide them is OK, better than doing uniformity. But such categories don't need to be seen by real Users. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Lena1 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User categories can be included in the main category tree edit

For example, Category:Photographs by ExampleUser may appear under Category:Photographs by photographer, under the basic principle that Wikipedians should not be punished simply for being Wikipedians. This is only permitted for user-related categories that exclusively relate to content created by the user in question. Category:Restorations by ExampleUser is permitted to be in the main tree; Category:Uploads by ExampleUser is not.

Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral concerning including user categories to categories like Category:Photographs by photographer, but Strong oppose to including user categories to content-related categories such as Category:Berlin or Category:Barack Obama. --Leyo 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how the latter would ever be relevant, though. Can you give a practical example? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are many such cases even now, e.g. the subcategories of Category:Prizren, Kosovo or the user category Category:Nevit Dilmen Proteins that is included in Category:Proteins. Especially the latter is IMO very misleading to readers. --Leyo 11:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Leyo: The confusing sort of category naming should be excluded by "Use of the User: prefix in categories – Option A"'s comments on clarification of names, which should probably be adopted whichever option passes. Do, for example, GLAM categories get categorised as that sort of subcategory? If so, I'd say we should have that sort of discussion more generally, if not, I'd say use the same rules as for GLAMs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should, but irrespective of the naming, user categories are generally out of place in content-related categories. --Leyo 21:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they're no more out of place than GLAM or institutional categories. We should probably just hold all to the same standard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because it is the open door to include such a category as a subcategory of this kind of category. Imagine the mess if all of us do such a thing. Such a connection is only possible if it is controlled by an "Uniform category scheme" or by a "User category:" namespace. ex: Category:New York < category:Images of New York by User < category:User:JeanPaulSarthre/New York (though I prefear Image of...by User:....) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lena1 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Euku:^⇄ 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sujalajus (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User categories should not generally combine topics edit

This relates to the sentence in the current guideline:

“

Users may create subcategories that combine topic/subject focus with this user-specific element, e.g. "Category:Photos of London by User:Example". These subcategories must be categorised under the user's main category with {{User category}}.

”

This would be modified, to state that it's discouraged, but that it may, however, be appropriate in some cases, to categorise images from a single photoshoot together, similar to how GLAM events and institutional uploads are handled. For example Category:ExampleUser's photos of the 2012 London Olympics or Category:ExampleUser's July 2016 Yorkminster photoshoot

Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I don't see a problem. Actually, there already seem to be quite some categories named in such a manner. --Leyo 00:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Leyo: I've noticed some ambiguity in how I wrote that, so tweaked it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't understand why this is a problem? I use "Images by subject" and "Images by location" under my usercat for a longtime and didn't see any issue with them so far. (Off-course, the are "hidden" usercats.) I don't know anything about photoshoots or GLAM events as they are not my area of interest. I'm a citizen scientist and my interests are organisms and their habitat (location, season, etc.). So I may visit same place, again and again, year after year. J e e 14:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lena1 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Euku:^⇄ 16:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the User: prefix in categories – Option A edit

Particularly where the category is based on the user's real name, or a pseudonym widely used off Wikipedia, User: is not required.

However, if the user's name or username may cause confusion, often by similarity to another term likely to be used for categorization (E.g. if your username is "User:Berlin", the existence of the German city of the same name would cause problems), the user's category generally should be the one to be disambiguated, since they're the only one likely to be putting material into their category, but all other users might potentially miscategorise into their user category. This may be done by including the User: prefix (E.g. "Category:User:Berlin", "Category:Photographs by User:Berlin" - "Photographs by Berlin" might be misread as "Photographs NEAR Berlin") or by other means, such as a parenthetical distinction after their name ("Category:Berlin (Commons user)", "Category:Berlin (graphic artist)") - with the same requirements that it not confuse users who are looking to categorise other content.

Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is a real name like "Jeevan Jose" is not very unique to a user. Such generic names can be shared by many people. So I can't use category:Jeevan Jose as my master category. But I can use category:User:Jeevan Jose or category:User:Jkadavoor. Jee 14:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the second paragraph covers this. If your worry, though, is that we might get conflicts with other commons users, I'd say that can be handled case by case. And what's to keep from the disambiguation Category:Jeeven Jose (User:Jkadavoor), say? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes; Category:Jeeven Jose (User:Jkadavoor) will work. But then we end up with "User:" prefix again. (I usually use User:Jkadavoor (Jee) which also cover my short real name. I can use User:Jkadavoor (Jeevan Jose) or User:Jkadavoor (Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India) as the situation demands. BTW, Jkadavoor is widely used by me in many other projects.)
  - So a better wording maybe "If the category is based on the user's real name, the username also should be included in brackets, with ~~or without~~ the "User:" prefix. eg: User:Jkadavoor (Jeevan Jose), Jeevan Jose (User:Jkadavoor), Jkadavoor (Jeevan Jose), Jeevan Jose (Jkadavoor)" J e e 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lena1 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the User: prefix in categories – Option B edit

User category names must contain either

“User:Username” (example: Category:Photographs by User:Xyz)

or

the real name (or stage name) of a user (example: Category:Photographs by John Doe)

Support Maybe a compromise that is also acceptable for users who like to use their real name in categories. --Leyo 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support. I think that there's two things that can improve this variant: 1. I'd keep the above suggestion that Users should generally disambiguate their own categories where conflict arises with another likely category. If your real name's Abraham Lincoln, you may not want to go by User:Abraham Lincoln, but you still probabkly shouldnt' be using "Photographs by Abraham Lincoln" as your category. 2. To deal with nicknames and such, how about "Real name, nickname, or name they are commonly known as" Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@1: OK; @2: It's this quite similar to stage name, i.e. names they are commonly (i.e. to a wide non-Wikipedia audience) known as? --Leyo 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Stage name" is generally only used for performers, though. "Pseudonym" might be more accurate, but that doesn't really imply the "name" being well-known. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this option is meaningless, since "stage name" would allow using anything. I don't think any restrictions to real names would work either, since we have no means to verify real names, and look at the arguments about real names on Facebook. --ghouston (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stage name is not meant to be the same as an alias or a nickname (see above). --Leyo 13:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A potentially workable compromise. CT Cooper · talk 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lena1 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the User: prefix in categories – Option C edit

User category names must either:

Contain “User:Username” (example: Category:Photographs by User:Xyz)

or

Be identifiable as user categories through other means such as a disambiguation, e.g., Category:Photographs by John Doe (Wikimedian) or Category:Photographs by John Doe (Commons user).

Support People should be able to use their real names or pseudonyms as long as they are distinguished from notable people. Something similar should apply to categories for files from Flickr etc. --ghouston (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support That may be a compromise that is acceptable for most users. --Leyo 00:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anything that penalses people for being members of our site is unacceptable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lena1 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.