Category talk:LAFFurs

This strikes me as a category more suited to a userpage template. -- Sine 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To expand on the above--I don't think a category for people who are members of a particular regional group is especially useful. -- Sine 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - this seems to be the sort of category better suited to userpages than to regular articles. If one regional group has their own category, how many others might eventually try to do the same? (And I'm loosely a member of said group, though my participation in their activities has been sporadic at best.) --mwalimu 19:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tucson Mob exists. It would be good to figure out a defined thing here and apply the decision to that category also. -- Sine 00:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a problem if they do? I'm unclear why we're throwing this kind of information away. It might only be useful to them, but that's still more useful than a lot of things we record here. --GreenReaper^(talk) 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Usefulness of a group

I don't understand how in the world a group could ever be considered 'unuseful'. What in the world do you mean? What if someone moved into the area, and knew one person was a part of a regional group, but not who else is, or was? You just click on the group, bam, you have a list. Meanwhile you nuked SOAP's group list, which isn't even a regional list. It's all past and present members of a particular club. We're spread out all across the country. I was one of the founders and I have no idea how many members and who are members now. You nuked one of the few easiest ways to keep track of new members, now I have to comb individual user pages of people I think maybe live near enough to be a member and we all have to go in and manually edit our entries to show we're members with no way to cross reference them anymore. It seems completely counter intuitive to the purpose of a wiki. You're removing information and removing cross referencing.Pathia 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting further discussion on Category talk:Regional groups

I've put a request for further discussion at Category talk:Regional groups, as this is an issue beyond LAFFurs (as evinced by the above). -- Sine 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Article update #1 (April 17 2009)

Keep, further discussion, or delete? - Spirou 02:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel we should keep this because it is a membership of a specific group. It's like being a member of staff at a convention - either you are or you aren't. Yeah, you could have a big list, and mention "is a member of LAFF" on each concerned article, but a category at the bottom works well and means we only have to change things in one place to add or remove people. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add -- the LAFF group used to have it's own wiki homepage, but was lost due to a crash. It was pretty fleshed out before that happened. The homepage [1] now has a link to http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Category:LAFFurs which is basically a member's directory. It serves a purpose to connect members and also attracts people to wikifur who may discover it through finding LAFF. I'm typing this right now because that link sparked my interest to check out wikifur again and update my profile here. ArtySkox

Consensus. Removing tag - Spirou 06:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And up for deletion / moving to user page

See Category talk:Furst Staters. -- Sine 13:19, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Nudging for any further discussion. -- Sine 16:40, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Oppose deleting this group, for these reasons - User:ArtySkox mentioned on Category talk:Regional groups this group used to have a prominent web presence, and it would therefore make sense to make an encyclopedic article to denote not only the group's history but also it's current membership. Also, a larger question, does this mean that all Category:Regional_groups categories would then be removed and relegated to user boxes by precedence? I strongly believe categorization by region is important for user pages for the ability to find others by proximity. User boxes display information about one user, but fail to link to a list of other users with the same user box. Unless a regional user box template could be developed that had this ability, I see the change from regional categories to user boxes as a loss of useful functionality. Finally, if only some groups are converted to user boxes but not all, I don't understand a useful criteria to distinguishing what should stay or go -- state by state is not very useful when you consider California and Rhode Island, where groups don't associate across the entire state or regional groups traverse many state borders. I think overlapping and amorphous regional groups are fine as they are now to denote this information. BlueOtter 16:52, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

In that case, I'll gradually get this category moved to before the other geographical ones on articles about people (to appease my sense of order). I don't however think there should be main-space categories for people how are members of a group that matches the geographical range of a category, e.g. state or country, as mentioned at Category talk:Furst Staters. -- Sine 20:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT)