Category talk:Users

Notable Users Discussion
With the large number of user articles that have been created, some of which are of... questionable quality... we need to come up with a solution for categorizing users - obviously some users are more notable than others, but we currently have no criteria for determining who is notable and who isn't, and no way of categorizing them. I have a couple of proposals.

1. Create a separate namespace for all users to have an article (i.e. the page URL would be like CEtizen:Username or Users:Username). Notable users will retain articles in the main namespace.

2. Leave all user articles in the main namespace, and create Category:Notable_Users, which will be applied to articles of users determined to be notable.

3. Make no distinction between notable users and non-notable users, as is currently done.

Honestly, I like all three options, for different reasons. The first option would keep the main namespace cleaner, it wouldn't include articles on every single lurker or person that thinks they're important but really aren't. The second option would better categorize things, making it easier to get an understanding of who is important on CE. The third option prevents people from getting mad that they aren't considered notable and people who are "notable" wouldn't be singled out as CElite or something like that.

Obviously, if we go with either of the first two options, we have to figure out how to decide who is notable and who isn't.

So, please, post your thoughts below and hopefully we can decide how we're going to go about this from here. FireCrotch (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh I don't think we should mark "notable" users, it's just asking for more whining and more trouble. We should stick to only one type of user page and only one type of user. "Important" users will end up having larger pages with more content anyway, and since I doubt people just wander here with no reason, it won't be harder for them to find whatever or whoever they're looking for. -- Rojr 07:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My idea would to be have a Misc. Users Page, and then a system where somebody can nominate somebody to move to the Misc. Page, and if 3/5 other people agree it will be merged but it can be nominated once. -- CEman 09:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the 2nd option. I guess they "could" be determined by the articles' size/informative, yet succinct info/formatting standards/amount of traffic going to their page within a particular timeframe, hence their popularity. Perhaps a census can be taken on CE to determine who is deemed important? -- Rafikistradley 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think option 3 is best, though Rafikistradley does make an interesting point. I also think that if we're going to distinguish; there should probably be some way to categorize "current" users who are still relevant from users who were once important but no longer post on CE--Sultan 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would enjoy keeping with the third option - not distincting at all. There's no reason for it. No one is more important than another. This isn't the real world, where money or status actually matters. I guess you could mark a group as "old" or "ancient" or "veteran" users, with a minimum limit of five years on CE, but how would we verify? Just another hassle. Leave it. - Seefu

I guess option 3 because of the whole hassle over determining notability. Though #2 could work if implemented some sort of nomination system for CEpeople to vote on whether a user should go under the "notable" category (like in the discussion page of the user's article?). #1 might be problematic, because constantly moving articles between the main namespace and "User:" pages would cause an annoying number of double redirects. Jigglypuff 10:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I think I prefer option 2 over option 3. A "notable users" category would help me weed out the pages about relatively obscure people who like to highlight other users and people who are "pretty cool guys." Jigglypuff 10:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading what Seefu had to say, I think option 3 is best, no distinction really necessary and it avoids all the hassle-- Sultan 03:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just keep going with 3 because there's already a "User of the Week" feature on the front page. There probably should be an archive for that too. Dead Guy Hubbin

I like option 3, due to Rojr's reasoning. 2 would be fine as well, but if we employed that, we should use a variation of UTC's idea: nominate a user, and if 3/5 agree that they are "notable," add them to the notable users category. For that, we could allow an unlimited number of nominations. Irool July 16, 2010, 14:46 EST

I guess I should mention, however, that I far prefer option 3. Irool July 16, 2010, 14:47 EST