- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Transferred from PROD as prod does not and shuold not do categories
- 132.205.45.148 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Category title portrays a POV & only one page is contained in the category. 01:11, 11 August 2006 user:Ssbohio
- Rename to Category:Places in Northern Cyprus, or alternatively, Category:Cities, towns, and villages in Northern Cyprus (to match Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cyprus). There are additional articles in Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which can populate the category. Incidentally, while "Turkish-occupied" is a POV, it is the internationally recognized POV, but the parent is for a separate CFR. - choster 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Category is slightly pov, but not enough for me to see it and think 'hey, thats POV!' Keep the category, but if it raises more POV flags for others then myself, rename it to Places in Northern Cyprus or Places in Turkish Cyprus. -
M
ask
22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC) - How about Places in Cyprus not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus?. It is a mere statement. No POV, I think. It is a reasonable request to counter balance the category Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus -- Kupirijo 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was moot. The previous category, Category:Articles lacking sources, was restored through deletion review. As such this category, which was largely a duplicate to begin with, is unnecessary and has been deleted. References to it have been replaced with the original Articles lacking sources, in all places that they occur. Dragons flight 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Articles needing sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
In this edit Jyril removed this category from Template:Unreferenced, and the removal was not immediately reverted. Indeed, because of an apparent delay in categorization after restoring the category to the template, I was unable to get the template to apply this category to several pages that I had recently added the template to. In light of the fact that the depopulation of the category concealed the existence of the discussion to some extent, it is questionable whether this category should be deleted as a result of this CFD nomination. John254 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not as questionable as the fact that it was recreated after an entirely proper deletion. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the category really were improperly created as a recreation of a previously deleted category, it could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4. The fact that there is a discussion over the proposed deletion would seem to indicate a need to avoid preemption of the discussion by depopulating the category before the discussion has concluded. John254 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
An utterly outrageous attempt was made to "speedy keep" this category. I have asked the user responsible never to close a category again, as he obviously cannot be trusted to act neutrally. Chicheley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This is a recreation of one of the two self-referential sources categories which have recently been deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21 for one of the debates, but I am having difficulty locating the other), and should therefore be instantly speedy deleted. It is just a pain for the millions of non-editing users, especially as it appears at the head of the list of categories. This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed. Many other reasons for deletion were given in the previous debates. The allegation that deleting this is some sort of cover up is completely spurious as there is no proposal to delete the template. Chicheley 11:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the other debate you're looking for is Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which was apparently a johnny-come-lately change to Template:Fact to distinguish it from Template:Sources. -- nae' blis 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Osomec 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I happen to think CFD got it wrong on this one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles using this category because of the associated templates. While it SHOULD be subcategorized by month and year, so we can deal with long-standing problems first and thus clear the backlog, sweeping the problem "under the rug" doesn't make our sourcing problems go away. I'm inclined to agree with the person who said that {{
fact}} should have a blinking neon background, because the uglier it is, the more likely people are to fix it.
Chicheley should also probably mention that he instigated the other two deletion discussions. --
nae'
blis
14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The same old arguments don't get better with repitition. It is risible to say that I am "sweeping the problem under the rug" because I am not proposing deletion of the template.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't in the first debate about this, and I apologize if you thought I was trying to get a rise out of you. I just think this is not the way to go about dealing with established cleanup methods (for instance, this does nothing about the templates themselves, or how to deal with the backlogs). -- nae' blis 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The same old arguments don't get better with repitition. It is risible to say that I am "sweeping the problem under the rug" because I am not proposing deletion of the template.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted category. -- Usgnus 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is populated by the {{
fact}} template, one of the most useful maintenance tags on Wikipedia. Chicheley claims "This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed." Wrong, wrong, wrong. What makes Wikipedia look sloppy is when people don't
cite all their sources and we leave it unmarked, making it look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened. The most important thing we can all do as Wikipedians is make the articles accurate. --
M
@
r
ē
ino
15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- That just makes no sense because I am not repeat not, get that not, saying that the problem should be left unmarked. I can't comprehend how you can think that the absence of this category makes it "look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened", that statement is just utterly, utterly nonsensical. Please try to stand back and look at Wikipedia from an outsider's perspective. The tens of millions of casual readers want Wikipedia to be user friendly, and if it is, some of them might contribute. If it just looks like a mess that is run by by club members for their own amusement, they are less likely to bother to help us. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Why is this category a problem, when
Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification and
Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification exist and are populated with hundreds of articles? Not to mention
Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates,
Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit,
Category:Self-contradictory articles, etc. I don't understand the dichotomy here; YES, we need to address our obsession with templates and our massive backlogs, but I don't see how deleting the category furthers that goal. --
nae'
blis
15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- All of the self-referential categories should go, but one has to start somewhere. This one is egregious because it is huge, it interferes with category navigation from many high profile articles, and it cannot be moved from the top of the list of categories because it is added by a template that is added to the main text. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Despite this category's size I feel that it is needed because it is a good way of looking for pages that need to have any information that needs to be sourced and confirmed. - Adv193 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep part of the dispute resolution system; for those who wish to redesign that system, the policy pages are third door on the left.
Septentrionalis
19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a rising trend for people who don't like results on this page to say that it is not the proper place to tackle categorisation issues, but it is called "categories for discussion" and it is the right place.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The category was never emptied, and recreated due to extant redlinks, no doubt. CFD, RFD, SFD, and TFD all suffer from a fair amount of isolation, because unlike AFD, you don't generally see the notice in your normal everyday browsing. Such a major change as getting rid of all self-referential categories needs to be discussed in a broader forum, IMO. Note that I am not in disagreement with you that something needs to be done, whether it's a metadata namespace or subcategorization of the major cleanup templates, I just am disputing that this was the way to do it (akin to nominating an existing policy for deletion on MFD). --
nae'
blis
22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of doubt actually, because that isn't how it works. It is frustrating that so many people who pronounce on this page don't understand how categories work. When a category added by a template is deleted it does not, repeat does not create red links. The category was recreated because someone had a bad idea, that is all.
Chicheley
22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I must be misunderstanding you; look
here if you don't believe that categories can be redlinks. --
nae'
blis
22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding, Nae'blis. Chicheley didn't say that 'when a category is deleted it does not create red links', he said 'when a category added by a template is deleted it does not create red links'. In the example you gave, someone
added the category tag several times manually to what appears to have been substitutions of {{
fact}}. If those template calls had been simply transcluding {{
fact}} instead of having substituted it, then they would have lost the link to the category whenever that link was removed from the template. So Chicheley is a little bit wrong here but his basic point still stands: when a category is deleted, it may leave one red link on a template, but no matter how many articles are transcluding that template, their red links for that category are eliminating by removing the single red link from the template. --
Antaeus Feldspar
19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting; I hadn't expected that, but given that transclusions tend to lag behind changes, I didn't look too closely into it. I understand how categories work better than templates, which explains my confusion. Sorry, Chicheley. -- nae' blis 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding, Nae'blis. Chicheley didn't say that 'when a category is deleted it does not create red links', he said 'when a category added by a template is deleted it does not create red links'. In the example you gave, someone
added the category tag several times manually to what appears to have been substitutions of {{
fact}}. If those template calls had been simply transcluding {{
fact}} instead of having substituted it, then they would have lost the link to the category whenever that link was removed from the template. So Chicheley is a little bit wrong here but his basic point still stands: when a category is deleted, it may leave one red link on a template, but no matter how many articles are transcluding that template, their red links for that category are eliminating by removing the single red link from the template. --
Antaeus Feldspar
19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I must be misunderstanding you; look
here if you don't believe that categories can be redlinks. --
nae'
blis
22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of doubt actually, because that isn't how it works. It is frustrating that so many people who pronounce on this page don't understand how categories work. When a category added by a template is deleted it does not, repeat does not create red links. The category was recreated because someone had a bad idea, that is all.
Chicheley
22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The category was never emptied, and recreated due to extant redlinks, no doubt. CFD, RFD, SFD, and TFD all suffer from a fair amount of isolation, because unlike AFD, you don't generally see the notice in your normal everyday browsing. Such a major change as getting rid of all self-referential categories needs to be discussed in a broader forum, IMO. Note that I am not in disagreement with you that something needs to be done, whether it's a metadata namespace or subcategorization of the major cleanup templates, I just am disputing that this was the way to do it (akin to nominating an existing policy for deletion on MFD). --
nae'
blis
22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a rising trend for people who don't like results on this page to say that it is not the proper place to tackle categorisation issues, but it is called "categories for discussion" and it is the right place.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete obviously as recreation. Hawkestone 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as recreation. If people need to know what articles need sources based upon {{ fact}}, here you go. -- Kbdank71 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- How many visitors are familiar with that function?-- JyriL talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatlinkshere has serious technical limitations; it's not alphabetized or sortable by namespace, it will link to (for example) this discussion or any place in which Template:fact is linked to, including instructional uses like {{tl|fact}}; conversely it may miss usage of {{ citation needed}} or {{ cn}}. I have heard citation needed that Whatlinkshere only goes up to 1000 links, but I'm not sure on that one. -- nae' blis 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep: Verifiability is paramount. To maintain even the tiniest shred of credibility we should—we must make clear to the public which articles can be considered "safe" and which ones may still be dubious (really dubious ones should meet eternity in the Hell of Bad Articles). In this light, any argument regarding navigability and such seems so useless. It is true, however, that this category SHOULD NOT exist, as there should be NO article that qualifies inclusion.-- JyriL talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Weak keep. Probably not useful because of its size; however, as John254 pointed out, editing can become problematic if there is no other way to list unreferenced articles. If this category will be deleted, I STRONGLY suggest figuring out better ways to keeping track on these articles. Until then, keeping this category may be better than nothing.-- JyriL talk 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreation, useless and redundant. Anyone who thinks that an article is "safe" because it is not in such a category needs a few lessons on research methods. Golfcam 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but it shows that at least the articles listed in this category are to be treated with suspicion. Better system is definitely needed, but this could be a momentary solution.-- JyriL talk 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Olborne 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason to delete it. I think it can help users find articles that needs sources and they might know some sources that needs it.-- Scott3 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This battle has already been waged. The keep side lost. Doczilla 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete If deletion decisions can be ignored we will have anarchy. Honbicot 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I just added a precise category and an unreferenced tag to an article. I am now going to remove the unreferenced tag to clear this category from it so the precise category receives due prominence. Nonomy 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Since, technically, nearly EVERY article would likely end up in this category, after one edit or another. {{ fact}} is better used as an alert to editors and readers in specific articles, than as a voluminous list. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I agree this is not valuable. Wimstead 13:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per last time. ReeseM 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The following excerpts from the debate at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21#Category:Articles lacking sources are worth reproducing here:
- What we really need is a choice between "editing mode" and "reading mode", but on the whole Wikipedia's presentation is skewed towards the needs of editors, which can make it look rather scrappy. Most people don't edit anyway, but they might donate if their experience is optimised. Carina22 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a pain when the first four or five categories at the bottom of the article are non subject matter related, so having one less of these administrative categories would be useful. More could be deleted too, in particular all of those related to sources, eg 1911 Britannica. Cloachland 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles....FearÉIREANN 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- If there was a means of hiding this from all users apart from those who requested to see it, then it would be fine, but as things stand it is category clutter. Golfcam 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Not a help for readers" isn't a convincing argument for deletion, since there are plenty of categories used throughout wikipedia which facilitate the work of editors. ... The category serves the important role that most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance do, which is to help editors improve wikipedia. Kayaker 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
- Ideally all the maintenance categories should be deleted, or at least hidden by default, but I have nominated this one because it is the very worst I have seen. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The arguments deployed for this deletion could be replicated (equally erroneously) for deleting all articlespace maintenance templates and categories (including dispute and controversy notices, stub tags, etc). Alai 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- [I]t may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted. Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- [T]he rationale of this CFD applies to every meta-category, and is in no way particular to this one, which strongly suggests to me that this is more sensibly the realm of centralised discussion and guideline creation, rather than "picking off stranglers". Alai 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I reproduce these comments here because they support the case that this CFD is just another instance of the ongoing debate about what categories are for and how should MediaWiki present categories of interest to editors (e.g. Category:Wikipedia maintenance) rather than readers. If you read Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines and the Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, you'd get the impression that categories are only for readers; that fact, and the comments above could imply that the real vote we need to have here is whether to recursively remove everything under Category:Wikipedia administration. 66.167.138.118 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC).
- Keep This category is valuable in article maintenance. John254 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Recreation of a bad idea. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 22:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This category doesn't convey any relevant information about an article. Wilchett 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This is of minimal utility as a single category, and will cease to be of any use at all if it increases in size by a couple of magnitudes, which it will do if it is kept. Subdivision is not practical as no single system of subcategorisation would be flexible enough, and introducing multiple systems of subcategorisation would create category clutter on an intolerable scale. Piccadilly 10:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Piccadilly etc. Merchbow 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, useful maintenance category that belongs to the template and should only be deleted when the template populating it is deleted. Kusma (討論) 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't understand the trend to take away useful organizational tools simply because they might seem messy. The template itself is going to give a far greater sense of mess to the reader than the category ever will. Dragons flight 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Clearly harmful to Wikipedia's user friendliness. Calsicol 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This is perhaps the second worst admin-centric category in Wikipedia after Category:Living people. Carina22 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep please the category is useful for maintenance Yuckfoo 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreation and totally useless to about 127,999,950 of the 128 million users comScore says Wikipedia has. Sumahoy 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete For all reasons given this time and last time. Twittenham 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete How about banning categorization by template? I have noticed that it can create a range of problems and it seems disproporationate that one edit can change thousands of articles. Cloachland 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While readers may not like it, it is an extremely important editorial category. Whether you think it is something that a "user" may not like, it is necessary when trying to bring up an article to higher quality standards.
Tito
xd(
?!?)
06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The arrogance of that just takes my breath away. Wikipedia is a service for readers. Readers are the people that matter. Chicheley 11:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! What, we should delete all categories that are self-refential? What about the templates like cleanup, afd, etc.? This is a seriously well-used and important category, and should be kept! User:Zoe| (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since this and the July 21 CFD mentioned earlier are basically the same CFD, here's a summary of votes thus far. Apologies for any transcription errors. 69.3.70.110 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
- Keep Important category to help with article improvement, invaluable to
wikignomes and as outragous as putting
WP:AN/I up for deletion in terms of useful functions. -
M
ask
00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- This will be a self imposed slash across the face for Wikipedia. It is not a useful function for readers, and Wikipedia only matters because it has readers. I am really beginning to wonder if the whole category system is a waste of time, as it has a built in tendency to get worse rather than better as so many bad categories are created and only a certain proportion will get deleted, leading to an unending accumulation of more and more crud.
Chicheley
20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is only useful to readers if it has good, properly researched articles. Not only does this category help that but your argument is akin to saying that supermarkets can't announce 'clean-up in aisle 5' over the intercom because its not giving shoppers things they need. Instead it helps the staff present the store in the way most accomadating to visitors, exactly as this category does. -
M
ask
22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is only useful to readers if it has good, properly researched articles. Not only does this category help that but your argument is akin to saying that supermarkets can't announce 'clean-up in aisle 5' over the intercom because its not giving shoppers things they need. Instead it helps the staff present the store in the way most accomadating to visitors, exactly as this category does. -
M
ask
- This will be a self imposed slash across the face for Wikipedia. It is not a useful function for readers, and Wikipedia only matters because it has readers. I am really beginning to wonder if the whole category system is a waste of time, as it has a built in tendency to get worse rather than better as so many bad categories are created and only a certain proportion will get deleted, leading to an unending accumulation of more and more crud.
Chicheley
20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete 7/21 8/11 Keep 7/21 8/11 Chicheley x x
siafu x
Carina22 x x
Viriditas x
Hawkestone x x
FearÉIREANN x
Casper Claiborne x x
C56C x
Athenaeum x
Passer-by x
Honbicot x x
GregorB x
Nonomy x x
Kayaker x
Olborne x x
Alai x
Cloachland x x
nae'blis
x Golfcam x x
M@rēin
x Nathan Mercer x x
Adv193
x Choalbaton x x
Septentrionalis
x Ramseystreet x
JyriL
x Sumahoy x x
Scott3
x ReeseM x x
John254
x Landolitan x
Kusma
x Piccadilly x x
Dragons flight
x Merchbow x x
Yuckfoo
x Twittenham x x
Titoxd
x Calsicol x x
Osomec x x
Usgnus
x
Kbdank71
x
Doczilla
x
Jc37
x
Wimstead
x
Wilchett
x
- comment Let's see what DRV does, eh? Kevin_b_er 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Important category for article improvement. I do hope some bot can subcategorize it to make it easier to use. Garion96 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Transferred from PROD as prod does not and shuold not do categories
- 132.205.45.148 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Category title portrays a POV & only one page is contained in the category. 01:11, 11 August 2006 user:Ssbohio
- Rename to Category:Places in Northern Cyprus, or alternatively, Category:Cities, towns, and villages in Northern Cyprus (to match Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cyprus). There are additional articles in Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which can populate the category. Incidentally, while "Turkish-occupied" is a POV, it is the internationally recognized POV, but the parent is for a separate CFR. - choster 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Category is slightly pov, but not enough for me to see it and think 'hey, thats POV!' Keep the category, but if it raises more POV flags for others then myself, rename it to Places in Northern Cyprus or Places in Turkish Cyprus. -
M
ask
22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about Places in Cyprus not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus?. It is a mere statement. No POV, I think. It is a reasonable request to counter balance the category Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus -- Kupirijo 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was moot. The previous category, Category:Articles lacking sources, was restored through deletion review. As such this category, which was largely a duplicate to begin with, is unnecessary and has been deleted. References to it have been replaced with the original Articles lacking sources, in all places that they occur. Dragons flight 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Articles needing sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
In this edit Jyril removed this category from Template:Unreferenced, and the removal was not immediately reverted. Indeed, because of an apparent delay in categorization after restoring the category to the template, I was unable to get the template to apply this category to several pages that I had recently added the template to. In light of the fact that the depopulation of the category concealed the existence of the discussion to some extent, it is questionable whether this category should be deleted as a result of this CFD nomination. John254 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not as questionable as the fact that it was recreated after an entirely proper deletion. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the category really were improperly created as a recreation of a previously deleted category, it could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4. The fact that there is a discussion over the proposed deletion would seem to indicate a need to avoid preemption of the discussion by depopulating the category before the discussion has concluded. John254 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
An utterly outrageous attempt was made to "speedy keep" this category. I have asked the user responsible never to close a category again, as he obviously cannot be trusted to act neutrally. Chicheley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This is a recreation of one of the two self-referential sources categories which have recently been deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21 for one of the debates, but I am having difficulty locating the other), and should therefore be instantly speedy deleted. It is just a pain for the millions of non-editing users, especially as it appears at the head of the list of categories. This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed. Many other reasons for deletion were given in the previous debates. The allegation that deleting this is some sort of cover up is completely spurious as there is no proposal to delete the template. Chicheley 11:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the other debate you're looking for is Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which was apparently a johnny-come-lately change to Template:Fact to distinguish it from Template:Sources. -- nae' blis 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Osomec 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I happen to think CFD got it wrong on this one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles using this category because of the associated templates. While it SHOULD be subcategorized by month and year, so we can deal with long-standing problems first and thus clear the backlog, sweeping the problem "under the rug" doesn't make our sourcing problems go away. I'm inclined to agree with the person who said that {{
fact}} should have a blinking neon background, because the uglier it is, the more likely people are to fix it.
Chicheley should also probably mention that he instigated the other two deletion discussions. --
nae'
blis
14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The same old arguments don't get better with repitition. It is risible to say that I am "sweeping the problem under the rug" because I am not proposing deletion of the template.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't in the first debate about this, and I apologize if you thought I was trying to get a rise out of you. I just think this is not the way to go about dealing with established cleanup methods (for instance, this does nothing about the templates themselves, or how to deal with the backlogs). -- nae' blis 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The same old arguments don't get better with repitition. It is risible to say that I am "sweeping the problem under the rug" because I am not proposing deletion of the template.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted category. -- Usgnus 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is populated by the {{
fact}} template, one of the most useful maintenance tags on Wikipedia. Chicheley claims "This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed." Wrong, wrong, wrong. What makes Wikipedia look sloppy is when people don't
cite all their sources and we leave it unmarked, making it look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened. The most important thing we can all do as Wikipedians is make the articles accurate. --
M
@
r
ē
ino
15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- That just makes no sense because I am not repeat not, get that not, saying that the problem should be left unmarked. I can't comprehend how you can think that the absence of this category makes it "look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened", that statement is just utterly, utterly nonsensical. Please try to stand back and look at Wikipedia from an outsider's perspective. The tens of millions of casual readers want Wikipedia to be user friendly, and if it is, some of them might contribute. If it just looks like a mess that is run by by club members for their own amusement, they are less likely to bother to help us. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Why is this category a problem, when
Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification and
Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification exist and are populated with hundreds of articles? Not to mention
Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates,
Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit,
Category:Self-contradictory articles, etc. I don't understand the dichotomy here; YES, we need to address our obsession with templates and our massive backlogs, but I don't see how deleting the category furthers that goal. --
nae'
blis
15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- All of the self-referential categories should go, but one has to start somewhere. This one is egregious because it is huge, it interferes with category navigation from many high profile articles, and it cannot be moved from the top of the list of categories because it is added by a template that is added to the main text. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Despite this category's size I feel that it is needed because it is a good way of looking for pages that need to have any information that needs to be sourced and confirmed. - Adv193 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep part of the dispute resolution system; for those who wish to redesign that system, the policy pages are third door on the left.
Septentrionalis
19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a rising trend for people who don't like results on this page to say that it is not the proper place to tackle categorisation issues, but it is called "categories for discussion" and it is the right place.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The category was never emptied, and recreated due to extant redlinks, no doubt. CFD, RFD, SFD, and TFD all suffer from a fair amount of isolation, because unlike AFD, you don't generally see the notice in your normal everyday browsing. Such a major change as getting rid of all self-referential categories needs to be discussed in a broader forum, IMO. Note that I am not in disagreement with you that something needs to be done, whether it's a metadata namespace or subcategorization of the major cleanup templates, I just am disputing that this was the way to do it (akin to nominating an existing policy for deletion on MFD). --
nae'
blis
22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of doubt actually, because that isn't how it works. It is frustrating that so many people who pronounce on this page don't understand how categories work. When a category added by a template is deleted it does not, repeat does not create red links. The category was recreated because someone had a bad idea, that is all.
Chicheley
22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I must be misunderstanding you; look
here if you don't believe that categories can be redlinks. --
nae'
blis
22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding, Nae'blis. Chicheley didn't say that 'when a category is deleted it does not create red links', he said 'when a category added by a template is deleted it does not create red links'. In the example you gave, someone
added the category tag several times manually to what appears to have been substitutions of {{
fact}}. If those template calls had been simply transcluding {{
fact}} instead of having substituted it, then they would have lost the link to the category whenever that link was removed from the template. So Chicheley is a little bit wrong here but his basic point still stands: when a category is deleted, it may leave one red link on a template, but no matter how many articles are transcluding that template, their red links for that category are eliminating by removing the single red link from the template. --
Antaeus Feldspar
19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting; I hadn't expected that, but given that transclusions tend to lag behind changes, I didn't look too closely into it. I understand how categories work better than templates, which explains my confusion. Sorry, Chicheley. -- nae' blis 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding, Nae'blis. Chicheley didn't say that 'when a category is deleted it does not create red links', he said 'when a category added by a template is deleted it does not create red links'. In the example you gave, someone
added the category tag several times manually to what appears to have been substitutions of {{
fact}}. If those template calls had been simply transcluding {{
fact}} instead of having substituted it, then they would have lost the link to the category whenever that link was removed from the template. So Chicheley is a little bit wrong here but his basic point still stands: when a category is deleted, it may leave one red link on a template, but no matter how many articles are transcluding that template, their red links for that category are eliminating by removing the single red link from the template. --
Antaeus Feldspar
19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I must be misunderstanding you; look
here if you don't believe that categories can be redlinks. --
nae'
blis
22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of doubt actually, because that isn't how it works. It is frustrating that so many people who pronounce on this page don't understand how categories work. When a category added by a template is deleted it does not, repeat does not create red links. The category was recreated because someone had a bad idea, that is all.
Chicheley
22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The category was never emptied, and recreated due to extant redlinks, no doubt. CFD, RFD, SFD, and TFD all suffer from a fair amount of isolation, because unlike AFD, you don't generally see the notice in your normal everyday browsing. Such a major change as getting rid of all self-referential categories needs to be discussed in a broader forum, IMO. Note that I am not in disagreement with you that something needs to be done, whether it's a metadata namespace or subcategorization of the major cleanup templates, I just am disputing that this was the way to do it (akin to nominating an existing policy for deletion on MFD). --
nae'
blis
22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a rising trend for people who don't like results on this page to say that it is not the proper place to tackle categorisation issues, but it is called "categories for discussion" and it is the right place.
Chicheley
20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete obviously as recreation. Hawkestone 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as recreation. If people need to know what articles need sources based upon {{ fact}}, here you go. -- Kbdank71 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- How many visitors are familiar with that function?-- JyriL talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatlinkshere has serious technical limitations; it's not alphabetized or sortable by namespace, it will link to (for example) this discussion or any place in which Template:fact is linked to, including instructional uses like {{tl|fact}}; conversely it may miss usage of {{ citation needed}} or {{ cn}}. I have heard citation needed that Whatlinkshere only goes up to 1000 links, but I'm not sure on that one. -- nae' blis 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep: Verifiability is paramount. To maintain even the tiniest shred of credibility we should—we must make clear to the public which articles can be considered "safe" and which ones may still be dubious (really dubious ones should meet eternity in the Hell of Bad Articles). In this light, any argument regarding navigability and such seems so useless. It is true, however, that this category SHOULD NOT exist, as there should be NO article that qualifies inclusion.-- JyriL talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)- Weak keep. Probably not useful because of its size; however, as John254 pointed out, editing can become problematic if there is no other way to list unreferenced articles. If this category will be deleted, I STRONGLY suggest figuring out better ways to keeping track on these articles. Until then, keeping this category may be better than nothing.-- JyriL talk 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreation, useless and redundant. Anyone who thinks that an article is "safe" because it is not in such a category needs a few lessons on research methods. Golfcam 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but it shows that at least the articles listed in this category are to be treated with suspicion. Better system is definitely needed, but this could be a momentary solution.-- JyriL talk 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Olborne 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason to delete it. I think it can help users find articles that needs sources and they might know some sources that needs it.-- Scott3 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This battle has already been waged. The keep side lost. Doczilla 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete If deletion decisions can be ignored we will have anarchy. Honbicot 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I just added a precise category and an unreferenced tag to an article. I am now going to remove the unreferenced tag to clear this category from it so the precise category receives due prominence. Nonomy 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Since, technically, nearly EVERY article would likely end up in this category, after one edit or another. {{ fact}} is better used as an alert to editors and readers in specific articles, than as a voluminous list. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I agree this is not valuable. Wimstead 13:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per last time. ReeseM 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The following excerpts from the debate at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21#Category:Articles lacking sources are worth reproducing here:
- What we really need is a choice between "editing mode" and "reading mode", but on the whole Wikipedia's presentation is skewed towards the needs of editors, which can make it look rather scrappy. Most people don't edit anyway, but they might donate if their experience is optimised. Carina22 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a pain when the first four or five categories at the bottom of the article are non subject matter related, so having one less of these administrative categories would be useful. More could be deleted too, in particular all of those related to sources, eg 1911 Britannica. Cloachland 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles....FearÉIREANN 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- If there was a means of hiding this from all users apart from those who requested to see it, then it would be fine, but as things stand it is category clutter. Golfcam 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Not a help for readers" isn't a convincing argument for deletion, since there are plenty of categories used throughout wikipedia which facilitate the work of editors. ... The category serves the important role that most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance do, which is to help editors improve wikipedia. Kayaker 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
- Ideally all the maintenance categories should be deleted, or at least hidden by default, but I have nominated this one because it is the very worst I have seen. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The arguments deployed for this deletion could be replicated (equally erroneously) for deleting all articlespace maintenance templates and categories (including dispute and controversy notices, stub tags, etc). Alai 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- [I]t may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted. Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- [T]he rationale of this CFD applies to every meta-category, and is in no way particular to this one, which strongly suggests to me that this is more sensibly the realm of centralised discussion and guideline creation, rather than "picking off stranglers". Alai 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I reproduce these comments here because they support the case that this CFD is just another instance of the ongoing debate about what categories are for and how should MediaWiki present categories of interest to editors (e.g. Category:Wikipedia maintenance) rather than readers. If you read Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines and the Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, you'd get the impression that categories are only for readers; that fact, and the comments above could imply that the real vote we need to have here is whether to recursively remove everything under Category:Wikipedia administration. 66.167.138.118 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC).
- Keep This category is valuable in article maintenance. John254 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Recreation of a bad idea. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 22:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This category doesn't convey any relevant information about an article. Wilchett 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This is of minimal utility as a single category, and will cease to be of any use at all if it increases in size by a couple of magnitudes, which it will do if it is kept. Subdivision is not practical as no single system of subcategorisation would be flexible enough, and introducing multiple systems of subcategorisation would create category clutter on an intolerable scale. Piccadilly 10:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Piccadilly etc. Merchbow 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, useful maintenance category that belongs to the template and should only be deleted when the template populating it is deleted. Kusma (討論) 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't understand the trend to take away useful organizational tools simply because they might seem messy. The template itself is going to give a far greater sense of mess to the reader than the category ever will. Dragons flight 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Clearly harmful to Wikipedia's user friendliness. Calsicol 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This is perhaps the second worst admin-centric category in Wikipedia after Category:Living people. Carina22 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep please the category is useful for maintenance Yuckfoo 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreation and totally useless to about 127,999,950 of the 128 million users comScore says Wikipedia has. Sumahoy 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete For all reasons given this time and last time. Twittenham 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete How about banning categorization by template? I have noticed that it can create a range of problems and it seems disproporationate that one edit can change thousands of articles. Cloachland 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While readers may not like it, it is an extremely important editorial category. Whether you think it is something that a "user" may not like, it is necessary when trying to bring up an article to higher quality standards.
Tito
xd(
?!?)
06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The arrogance of that just takes my breath away. Wikipedia is a service for readers. Readers are the people that matter. Chicheley 11:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! What, we should delete all categories that are self-refential? What about the templates like cleanup, afd, etc.? This is a seriously well-used and important category, and should be kept! User:Zoe| (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Since this and the July 21 CFD mentioned earlier are basically the same CFD, here's a summary of votes thus far. Apologies for any transcription errors. 69.3.70.110 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
- Keep Important category to help with article improvement, invaluable to
wikignomes and as outragous as putting
WP:AN/I up for deletion in terms of useful functions. -
M
ask
00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- This will be a self imposed slash across the face for Wikipedia. It is not a useful function for readers, and Wikipedia only matters because it has readers. I am really beginning to wonder if the whole category system is a waste of time, as it has a built in tendency to get worse rather than better as so many bad categories are created and only a certain proportion will get deleted, leading to an unending accumulation of more and more crud.
Chicheley
20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is only useful to readers if it has good, properly researched articles. Not only does this category help that but your argument is akin to saying that supermarkets can't announce 'clean-up in aisle 5' over the intercom because its not giving shoppers things they need. Instead it helps the staff present the store in the way most accomadating to visitors, exactly as this category does. -
M
ask
22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is only useful to readers if it has good, properly researched articles. Not only does this category help that but your argument is akin to saying that supermarkets can't announce 'clean-up in aisle 5' over the intercom because its not giving shoppers things they need. Instead it helps the staff present the store in the way most accomadating to visitors, exactly as this category does. -
M
ask
- This will be a self imposed slash across the face for Wikipedia. It is not a useful function for readers, and Wikipedia only matters because it has readers. I am really beginning to wonder if the whole category system is a waste of time, as it has a built in tendency to get worse rather than better as so many bad categories are created and only a certain proportion will get deleted, leading to an unending accumulation of more and more crud.
Chicheley
20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete 7/21 8/11 Keep 7/21 8/11 Chicheley x x
siafu x
Carina22 x x
Viriditas x
Hawkestone x x
FearÉIREANN x
Casper Claiborne x x
C56C x
Athenaeum x
Passer-by x
Honbicot x x
GregorB x
Nonomy x x
Kayaker x
Olborne x x
Alai x
Cloachland x x
nae'blis
x Golfcam x x
M@rēin
x Nathan Mercer x x
Adv193
x Choalbaton x x
Septentrionalis
x Ramseystreet x
JyriL
x Sumahoy x x
Scott3
x ReeseM x x
John254
x Landolitan x
Kusma
x Piccadilly x x
Dragons flight
x Merchbow x x
Yuckfoo
x Twittenham x x
Titoxd
x Calsicol x x
Osomec x x
Usgnus
x
Kbdank71
x
Doczilla
x
Jc37
x
Wimstead
x
Wilchett
x
- comment Let's see what DRV does, eh? Kevin_b_er 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Important category for article improvement. I do hope some bot can subcategorize it to make it easier to use. Garion96 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.