July 21
Category:International Democrat Union to Category:IDU
Category:Reward websites
More Academy Award categories
Category:Celebrity Whovians
Category:Since the Ninth Doctor
Beaches
Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic
Category:Fictional Businesses to Category:Fictional businesses
Category:Japan history of foreign relations to Category:History of the foreign relations of Japan
Category:Smith College alumni to Category:Smith College alumnae
- 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 keep -- Kbdank71 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Smith is an all-women's college, so graduates are considered alunae, not alumni. I know that the category is relatively unpopulated right now, but there are at least a couple dozen people that could fit in it. cbustapeck 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This is technically correct, but do we want to create the impression that schools should have two gender-differentiated categories for their graduates? It seems like this would do that.--
Mike Selinker 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the publications that I've seen from women's colleges, they tend to make a point of using "alumnae". Alumni can refer to men or men and women. My primary concern is for the sake of consistency: we already have
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges - do you think that those should be renamed, then?
cbustapeck 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If consistency is the concern, these categories are the only two (or would the only three) in the parent (
Category:Alumni by university in the United States) to use -ae instead of -i. Which consistency is more important?
siafu 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- siafu has it right, I think. I propose we leave this one alone and reverse merge
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae to
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges to
Category:Alumni of women's colleges. If we get too much disagreement on this, the word "graduates" is available, but I'd like to stick with alumni.--
Mike Selinker 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Alumni is actually more broad than graduates, as it includes those who have attended but not graduated.
siafu 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's please not go with graduates for this reason. As it is now, the only U.S. schools with graduates categories are the military academies (and we made them each a subcat of an alumni cat in order to match). × Meegs 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Alumni is actually more broad than graduates, as it includes those who have attended but not graduated.
siafu 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- siafu has it right, I think. I propose we leave this one alone and reverse merge
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae to
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges to
Category:Alumni of women's colleges. If we get too much disagreement on this, the word "graduates" is available, but I'd like to stick with alumni.--
Mike Selinker 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If consistency is the concern, these categories are the only two (or would the only three) in the parent (
Category:Alumni by university in the United States) to use -ae instead of -i. Which consistency is more important?
siafu 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the publications that I've seen from women's colleges, they tend to make a point of using "alumnae". Alumni can refer to men or men and women. My primary concern is for the sake of consistency: we already have
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges - do you think that those should be renamed, then?
cbustapeck 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's keep things simple. "Alumni" is a gender-neutral word in English. Osomec 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a member of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. Plus, I agree with Osomec. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. C56C 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for consistency's sake over pedantic precision. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. Golfcam 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and Alumnus. -- Usgnus 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- rename Accuracy comes first in encyclopaedias over tabloidese.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) - Oppose Alumni is the English word. ReeseM 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Dhartung and ReeseM. -- BrownHairedGirl 14:27, 27 July 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.
Category:Pundits to Category:Political pundits
Category:Articles lacking sources
- 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 delete -- Kbdank71 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a sibling and near-duplicate of the recently deleted category:Articles with unsourced statements and is a bad idea for all the same reasons, starting with the one pointed out on the category itself, namely that it is a self-reference. I would particularly like to emphasise that this is not a help for readers, and it is not needed as a warning to them, as the notes and boxes in the articles do that more than adequately. As it is can be added by templates it often appears at the head of the list of categories on an article, where it is an impediment to navigation, and suggests that Wikipedia is optimised for editors rather than readers (who outnumber regular editors by thousands to one), which makes Wikipedia look amateurish. The category is vast, and I see no prospect of it ever being cleared, which is not a bad thing, but just an inevitable outcome of the Wikipedia process. If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system. I don't see how it is of much use in finding articles to work on, and subdivision would be a disaster as some articles could end up in 20 of the subcategories. It just has to go. Chicheley 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Chicheley 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This category is associated with
Template:unreferenced and
Template:primarysources, so any discussion of the category should start there, not here.
siafu 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. This is the page where we discuss how to optimise the category system. I am not proposing deletion of the templates as I don't have a problem with them, and the two issues should not be confused.
Chicheley 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not confusing the two issues is exactly why I strongly suggest discussing it on the template talk page first. Deleting this category is pointless as it will be instantly recreated by using the templates unless said templates are first editted to not include the category.
siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are plainly and demonstrably wrong as the similar category has not been recreated. A template cannot create a category without human intervention.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me clearly. Editors will recreate this category. Put simply, in order to get rid of this, the template must be editted, as a category redlink at the bottom of the page is much worse than another blue link in the list. In order to edit the template, you'll have to have consensus on the template talk. Going from here to there is completely backwards.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not misunderstand you, and I am relying on a precedent while you are merely speculating. There are no "redlinks at the bottom of the page" in respect of the other category which was deleted, and if I see it again I will nominate it for speedy deletion. It is out of order to say that the categories for discussion page cannot discuss the fate of a particular category. Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me clearly. Editors will recreate this category. Put simply, in order to get rid of this, the template must be editted, as a category redlink at the bottom of the page is much worse than another blue link in the list. In order to edit the template, you'll have to have consensus on the template talk. Going from here to there is completely backwards.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are plainly and demonstrably wrong as the similar category has not been recreated. A template cannot create a category without human intervention.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not confusing the two issues is exactly why I strongly suggest discussing it on the template talk page first. Deleting this category is pointless as it will be instantly recreated by using the templates unless said templates are first editted to not include the category.
siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. This is the page where we discuss how to optimise the category system. I am not proposing deletion of the templates as I don't have a problem with them, and the two issues should not be confused.
Chicheley 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "The category is vast may never be cleared", per Chicheley, this category obviously has plenty of demand. Additionally, the motivation presented for removing this category seems to be more about avoiding the problem of unsourced statement than optimizing categorization.
siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It proves nothing of the kind. All it proves is that the template is added to lots of articles, which is not under dispute. The category has only been added to the template once. You misinterpretation of the motivation is absolute. There is no motivation other than to optimize categorization by reducing the number of distracting categories which are of little use to readers and by allowing categories to be put in a sensible order manually, without clumsy interventions by software.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I misunderstand, it is only by reading your words. In particular: "If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system." The solution in this case is to remove the template from the article not eliminate the category altogether. The only reason removing it would prove impossible is if consensus is in favor of its presence. Eliminating the category is just a means of avoiding the problem.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- My words were clear enough. I am against the category, not the template. I want the category removed in all cases, and I am certainly not going to trawl through thousands of categories to look for cases where the template can be removed to reduce the damage done by the category.
Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, you argument that this category is used on excellent articles is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant, and your words were not clear enough.
siafu 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither meaningless nor irrelevant. It is intended to expose the way this category can misrepresent the situation if the template is added overenthusiatically or if it isn't removed when additional references are added. At the very least the current name is ill thought out, as it can be read as "Articles that lack any sources". Indeed if you asked people to consider the phrase cold, I would expect them to assume it to mean exactly that.
Chicheley 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is both; if there's a problem with its use on particular pages then the solution to that problem is much more specific than the deletion of the category. Whatever argument you make (including the ones you have) in favor of deleting the category outright are not supported by the fact that it's occasionally misused. The same goes for the choice of name.
siafu 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither; it is an example of one of the many problems with this category, the inclusion of which on an article is lamentable in every case.
Chicheley 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- A specific problem with some uses of a template does not provide support for general removal of all uses of the category. It's very simple.
siafu 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think I have made it very clear that in my opinion all uses of the template to add a category are bad, however some are even worse than others. Chicheley 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- A specific problem with some uses of a template does not provide support for general removal of all uses of the category. It's very simple.
siafu 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither; it is an example of one of the many problems with this category, the inclusion of which on an article is lamentable in every case.
Chicheley 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is both; if there's a problem with its use on particular pages then the solution to that problem is much more specific than the deletion of the category. Whatever argument you make (including the ones you have) in favor of deleting the category outright are not supported by the fact that it's occasionally misused. The same goes for the choice of name.
siafu 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither meaningless nor irrelevant. It is intended to expose the way this category can misrepresent the situation if the template is added overenthusiatically or if it isn't removed when additional references are added. At the very least the current name is ill thought out, as it can be read as "Articles that lack any sources". Indeed if you asked people to consider the phrase cold, I would expect them to assume it to mean exactly that.
Chicheley 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, you argument that this category is used on excellent articles is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant, and your words were not clear enough.
siafu 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- My words were clear enough. I am against the category, not the template. I want the category removed in all cases, and I am certainly not going to trawl through thousands of categories to look for cases where the template can be removed to reduce the damage done by the category.
Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I misunderstand, it is only by reading your words. In particular: "If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system." The solution in this case is to remove the template from the article not eliminate the category altogether. The only reason removing it would prove impossible is if consensus is in favor of its presence. Eliminating the category is just a means of avoiding the problem.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It proves nothing of the kind. All it proves is that the template is added to lots of articles, which is not under dispute. The category has only been added to the template once. You misinterpretation of the motivation is absolute. There is no motivation other than to optimize categorization by reducing the number of distracting categories which are of little use to readers and by allowing categories to be put in a sensible order manually, without clumsy interventions by software.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 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)
- Delete as self reference. Hawkestone 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per well argued nomination. Casper Claiborne 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as deleting the category will not solve any of the problems raised. It is my personal opinion that the templates should only be used on talk pages to avoid clutter in the article and will solve the "impediment to navigation" problem the nom raises. Nom would also be wise to post actual statistics on the category itself. Discussion needs to be moved to template talk pages per siafu as deletion solves nothing. —
Viriditas |
Talk 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deletion may not be what you want, but it solves all the problems that bother me. The talk page suggestion is a non-starter as the category placement is generated by templats which should be no the article page. Chicheley 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Viriditas.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep category. C56C 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Passer-by 13:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The name is literally untrue in most cases and the category is needlessly self-denigratory. Honbicot 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Would one see this in a professional encyclopedia? Wikipedia needs to improve its standards of presentation. Nonomy 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The contents are totally random and this category is therefore useless for browsing.
Olborne 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a maintenance category. It's not meant for browsing. siafu 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles. The fact that necessary and used maintenance categories are proposed for deletion here, when being maintenance categories they are intended as links to articles that need fixing, just shows the ludicrousness of these deletion pages, not this category. But then looking at many of the comments on this page, it seems that a lot of users don't know what maintenance categories are and how they are used. They operate fundamentally differently to ordinary categories and once an article is fixed it is taken off the category.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 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)
- Delete Totally random connections are not category material. 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)
- Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the "encyclopedia every reader has to watch being edited". The user interface should be kept clean. Choalbaton 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It was editors, not readers, who made Wikipedia great. Besides: you know what looks even more amateurish than an unsourced article that says it's unsourced? Well, it's the unsourced article that doesn't say it's unsourced. But hey, that's the template not the category! The rationale for deletion is seriously fumbled.
GregorB 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is to be made great for readers. It would be of no significance without readers, and it would be a credit to Wikipedia if all editors would show the humility not put their needs first. Your rational is seriously fumbled as there is no proposal to remove the statements that articles need extra sources. It will still say it in the relevant place, but it will no longer superflously say it in another random and irrelevant place.
Chicheley 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you are saying that: 1) this category makes Wikipedia amateurish, while the template that says the same does not, and 2) this category distracts readers, while the much more obtrusive template that says the same does not. That doesn't make sense to me.
GregorB 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The template are a regrettable but necessary warning, but the category is redundant as a warning since the template is all that is needed for that purpose, and is merely an obstacle to navigation. A professional encyclopedia would not inflict such own goals, as they would suggest (and the suggestion is quite correct in the case of Wikipedia) that some of the editors are rather self absorbed and more interested in their own needs than the needs of readers. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you are saying that: 1) this category makes Wikipedia amateurish, while the template that says the same does not, and 2) this category distracts readers, while the much more obtrusive template that says the same does not. That doesn't make sense to me.
GregorB 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is to be made great for readers. It would be of no significance without readers, and it would be a credit to Wikipedia if all editors would show the humility not put their needs first. Your rational is seriously fumbled as there is no proposal to remove the statements that articles need extra sources. It will still say it in the relevant place, but it will no longer superflously say it in another random and irrelevant place.
Chicheley 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as requested. Ramseystreet 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sumahoy 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "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 fact that it makes "Wikipedia look amateurish" by being early in the list of categories is unconvincing, since there are plenty of other examples of categories that do this (for example, stub categories can appear pretty much anywhere in the list). The fact that it is "sometimes found on excellent articles" is a reason to remove it in those cases, not to delete the category. 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).
- So you are arguing that a bad category should be kept because there are other bad categories. 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)
- Delete per nom. ReeseM 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The title is misleading and the category is not useful a navigational aid. Landolitan 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If the category is deleted, there's always Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Unreferenced. — Keenan Pepper 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: wrong venue, per Variable. On the substantiative question: keep anyway, the "professionalism" arguments against maintenance "self-references" are seriously wrong-headed. The way for the "professionalism" of Wikipedia to be increased is to improve the article contents to be in line with our own defined standards, not to sweep identified problems with articles under the rug to make the article page look superficially better. 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)
- Comment What that amounts to is that you think the discussion should be restricted to people who use this category. Don't you think that might be a rather skewed sample? It is nonsense to suggest that deleting this category will sweep a problem under the carpet.
Merchbow 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- In what way does it amount to any such thing? I don't use the category, so I'm arguing that my own comment should be discounted, in some way I didn't notice? You inference seems poorly grounded. However, I do think the people discussing this should give some consideration to people who use it as a cleanup resource (which isn't to say I imagine they will, especially not retrospectively, or that this should or would be any sort of "restriction" on said discussion). As opposed to giving such inordinate weight to the "makes the article looks less nice" argument. It speaks, not of prioritising readers over editors, but of prioritising the appearance of professionalism, over actual concern for facilitating achieving real professional standards.
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- People who use the category will see the nomination notice. Good presentation is part of real professionalism. I would be surprised if you could find a professional reference book editor who would disagree with that. As has been said before, the template appears in the article, so the inference that deleting the category will amount to some sort of cover-up in nonsensical. Merchbow 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- In what way does it amount to any such thing? I don't use the category, so I'm arguing that my own comment should be discounted, in some way I didn't notice? You inference seems poorly grounded. However, I do think the people discussing this should give some consideration to people who use it as a cleanup resource (which isn't to say I imagine they will, especially not retrospectively, or that this should or would be any sort of "restriction" on said discussion). As opposed to giving such inordinate weight to the "makes the article looks less nice" argument. It speaks, not of prioritising readers over editors, but of prioritising the appearance of professionalism, over actual concern for facilitating achieving real professional standards.
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What that amounts to is that you think the discussion should be restricted to people who use this category. Don't you think that might be a rather skewed sample? It is nonsense to suggest that deleting this category will sweep a problem under the carpet.
Merchbow 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Inaccurate, annoying and, as per —
Keenan Pepper also redundant. On the basis of his information it may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted.
Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that conclusion pretty much makes my point for me. If your sole aim is making the category list look as reader-friendly as possible, without regard to editing concerns, then agitate for
WP:STATIC,
WP:STABLE, and a namespace distinction between article-space and other categories in software, that would facilitate configuration for "tidying up" the appearance of the article, without interfering with its development as a work-in-progress. Oh, and do something about
Category:Living people, for a start (a "maintenance category" its impossible to remove by "maintenance" actibvity (well, short of wetwork, at least)). And "inaccuate" in what way? There are no articles on wikipedia that lack sources? Or are you arguing for deletion to cure actual or prevent possible misuse?
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
WP:STATIC and
WP:STABLE are irrelevant to this matter, but in any case I don't think they are viable, so I will not be acting on your suggestion. As for
Category:Living people, like many Wikipedians, I would love to see the back of it, but Jimbo Wales won't allow it. The existence of one flaw should never be used as an excuse to preserve other flaws. The name of this category is inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because many of the articles in it have some sources. One can quibble the precise meaning of the word "lacking", but it is certain that some people would misunderstand the present name.
Merchbow 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not holding my breath about any of the above being implemented in any sort of hurry either, but they're logical courses if one takes the view that "wikipedia must look as 'professional' as possible, and editorial convenience can go jump in the lake", which seems to be the spirit of this nom, and the implied intent to delete every other such text-oriented rather than topic-oriented category. They're certainly not irrelevant, as they speak to the same urge to "protect" readers from the "beware, under construction" aspects that otherwise pretty inherent to wikpedia (or indeed, wiki-anything). OTOH, category namespace separation has been floated by one of the devs, so I assume it isn't horrifically unlikely, and would certainly be a much more general "solution" to the alleged "problem". No idea if the idea went any place after that, though. This isn't a matter of one flaw justifying another: no case has been made to my satisfaction there's any actual flaw here. If an article's "issues" are sufficient to merit a "warning" template, the presence of a category asserting the same condition can hardly be an undue impediment in any real sense. Removing one, and keeping the other, has about the same effect as far as a reader is concerned, but is clearly much less useful for editors. Talk-page-ising them would regain most of the category benefits, though the double-tagged would obviously mean double-handling, and almost immediately lead to inconsistency between the two. There's nothing inherently inaccurate about the category: if it's being misused, that should be fixed by removing template usages, not by removing the category, and leaving template misuses that much more "out of sight and out of mind" -- and thus that much more likely to stay that way. If it's ambiguous as to degree of unsourcedness, it should be renamed, or split into Category:Articles requiring additional sources and Category:Articles with no sources, or something to that effect. (I hereby predict that if this is deleted, it'll be recreated under some such name, whereupon there will be shouts of "G4!", without much consideration of potentially different scope.) We do seem to agree on one thing: that the 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)
-
WP:STATIC and
WP:STABLE are irrelevant to this matter, but in any case I don't think they are viable, so I will not be acting on your suggestion. As for
Category:Living people, like many Wikipedians, I would love to see the back of it, but Jimbo Wales won't allow it. The existence of one flaw should never be used as an excuse to preserve other flaws. The name of this category is inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because many of the articles in it have some sources. One can quibble the precise meaning of the word "lacking", but it is certain that some people would misunderstand the present name.
Merchbow 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that conclusion pretty much makes my point for me. If your sole aim is making the category list look as reader-friendly as possible, without regard to editing concerns, then agitate for
WP:STATIC,
WP:STABLE, and a namespace distinction between article-space and other categories in software, that would facilitate configuration for "tidying up" the appearance of the article, without interfering with its development as a work-in-progress. Oh, and do something about
Category:Living people, for a start (a "maintenance category" its impossible to remove by "maintenance" actibvity (well, short of wetwork, at least)). And "inaccuate" in what way? There are no articles on wikipedia that lack sources? Or are you arguing for deletion to cure actual or prevent possible misuse?
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Twittenham 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments already made. Calsicol 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Osomec 22:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a little more juducious use, and the deletion of that lame template I pissed off some Euro-environmentalist by pointing out (with references) that something wasn't as dangerous as the EU would lead one to believe, and the next day, every other article I ever worked on has these 'administrative' tags and 'categories' pinned to the top. I don't even bother to submit to political articles because one needs massive citations to avoid having your stuff watered down to NPOV, even when a politician is 99% evil. Similarly I don't do 'heavy' science articles unless I'm willing to verify my content. My example is Blinkies which I wrote and someone put this tag on. I looked all over the internet for a patent or something to no avail. All I can say is that they exist, I've bought hundereds of them, I can (and did) give web adddresses for dozens of companies that sell them (with pictures). In short, I am the source and for something as trivial as a blinky toy it's a little pretentious to require me to 'prove' they exist. I do like the small citation mark that's in some articles, that lets me know there may be some doubt as to that one statment's accuracy or neutrality.
- Tiki God 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a little work too I've also noticed that the sources for an article are often in other similar articles. It took me 2 minutes to find the IEC/ ANSI codes for the size and voltage of an AA battery over in List of battery sizes. It seems to me that template spammers just throw this up and don't bother to look (even on Wikipedia) for a source, which is really annoying considering that it goes at the top of a the page. One shouldn't be able to put up that lame template unless they actually spent at least 5 minutes looking for a source.
- Tiki God 12:05, 29 July 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.
Category:Rapid transit systems that operate around the clock to Category:24-hour rapid transit systems
Category:Articles with multiple video files
Category:Israel and Zionism to Category:Zionism
Category:Current national leaders who are relatives of a former leader
- 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 delete -- Kbdank71 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggest (a) rename to Category:National leaders related to a former leader; or (b) Category:Current national leaders related to a former leader if (to be) watched; or (c) delete as overly contingent. David Kernow 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per (c). (a) is a total non starter as until the last 200 years about 98% of national leaders were related to a former leader, ie they were members of a royal family. Second choice is (b). Choalbaton 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial, and as mentioned, monarchies would overwhelm the category. siafu 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Family circumstances are rarely worth categorizing. Hawkestone 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename
Category:Elected political leaders related to a former leader. Is a worthwhile category when focused on elected, not hereditary leaders (e.g., The two president George Bush, the Chamberlain brothers in the UK, two prime ministers father and son called Cosgrave in Ireland, etc etc.)
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Serves no purpose. C56C 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, though I wouldn't oppose a better, more concise remake... Michael 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is human interest trivia, not a serious encyclopedic political category. Athenaeum 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per user:Jtdirl. — Insta ntnood 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is POV to assume that this is an essential characteristic of any modern politicians; shades of "Bush Family Conspiracy Theory" and that kind of thing. Piccadilly 20:56, 26 July 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.
Beach Boys and Beatles singles
Category:Famous Tests
Category:Postal codes of the United States to Category:ZIP codes of the United States
Category:Heavy metal singers by nationality to Category:Heavy metal singers
Category:Wrestlers who have died
July 21
Category:International Democrat Union to Category:IDU
Category:Reward websites
More Academy Award categories
Category:Celebrity Whovians
Category:Since the Ninth Doctor
Beaches
Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic
Category:Fictional Businesses to Category:Fictional businesses
Category:Japan history of foreign relations to Category:History of the foreign relations of Japan
Category:Smith College alumni to Category:Smith College alumnae
- 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 keep -- Kbdank71 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Smith is an all-women's college, so graduates are considered alunae, not alumni. I know that the category is relatively unpopulated right now, but there are at least a couple dozen people that could fit in it. cbustapeck 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This is technically correct, but do we want to create the impression that schools should have two gender-differentiated categories for their graduates? It seems like this would do that.--
Mike Selinker 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the publications that I've seen from women's colleges, they tend to make a point of using "alumnae". Alumni can refer to men or men and women. My primary concern is for the sake of consistency: we already have
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges - do you think that those should be renamed, then?
cbustapeck 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If consistency is the concern, these categories are the only two (or would the only three) in the parent (
Category:Alumni by university in the United States) to use -ae instead of -i. Which consistency is more important?
siafu 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- siafu has it right, I think. I propose we leave this one alone and reverse merge
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae to
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges to
Category:Alumni of women's colleges. If we get too much disagreement on this, the word "graduates" is available, but I'd like to stick with alumni.--
Mike Selinker 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Alumni is actually more broad than graduates, as it includes those who have attended but not graduated.
siafu 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's please not go with graduates for this reason. As it is now, the only U.S. schools with graduates categories are the military academies (and we made them each a subcat of an alumni cat in order to match). × Meegs 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Alumni is actually more broad than graduates, as it includes those who have attended but not graduated.
siafu 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- siafu has it right, I think. I propose we leave this one alone and reverse merge
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae to
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges to
Category:Alumni of women's colleges. If we get too much disagreement on this, the word "graduates" is available, but I'd like to stick with alumni.--
Mike Selinker 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If consistency is the concern, these categories are the only two (or would the only three) in the parent (
Category:Alumni by university in the United States) to use -ae instead of -i. Which consistency is more important?
siafu 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the publications that I've seen from women's colleges, they tend to make a point of using "alumnae". Alumni can refer to men or men and women. My primary concern is for the sake of consistency: we already have
Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae and
Category:Alumnae of women's colleges - do you think that those should be renamed, then?
cbustapeck 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's keep things simple. "Alumni" is a gender-neutral word in English. Osomec 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a member of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. Plus, I agree with Osomec. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. C56C 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for consistency's sake over pedantic precision. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. Golfcam 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and Alumnus. -- Usgnus 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- rename Accuracy comes first in encyclopaedias over tabloidese.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Alumni is the English word. ReeseM 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Dhartung and ReeseM. -- BrownHairedGirl 14:27, 27 July 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.
Category:Pundits to Category:Political pundits
Category:Articles lacking sources
- 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 delete -- Kbdank71 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a sibling and near-duplicate of the recently deleted category:Articles with unsourced statements and is a bad idea for all the same reasons, starting with the one pointed out on the category itself, namely that it is a self-reference. I would particularly like to emphasise that this is not a help for readers, and it is not needed as a warning to them, as the notes and boxes in the articles do that more than adequately. As it is can be added by templates it often appears at the head of the list of categories on an article, where it is an impediment to navigation, and suggests that Wikipedia is optimised for editors rather than readers (who outnumber regular editors by thousands to one), which makes Wikipedia look amateurish. The category is vast, and I see no prospect of it ever being cleared, which is not a bad thing, but just an inevitable outcome of the Wikipedia process. If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system. I don't see how it is of much use in finding articles to work on, and subdivision would be a disaster as some articles could end up in 20 of the subcategories. It just has to go. Chicheley 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Chicheley 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This category is associated with
Template:unreferenced and
Template:primarysources, so any discussion of the category should start there, not here.
siafu 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. This is the page where we discuss how to optimise the category system. I am not proposing deletion of the templates as I don't have a problem with them, and the two issues should not be confused.
Chicheley 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not confusing the two issues is exactly why I strongly suggest discussing it on the template talk page first. Deleting this category is pointless as it will be instantly recreated by using the templates unless said templates are first editted to not include the category.
siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are plainly and demonstrably wrong as the similar category has not been recreated. A template cannot create a category without human intervention.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me clearly. Editors will recreate this category. Put simply, in order to get rid of this, the template must be editted, as a category redlink at the bottom of the page is much worse than another blue link in the list. In order to edit the template, you'll have to have consensus on the template talk. Going from here to there is completely backwards.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not misunderstand you, and I am relying on a precedent while you are merely speculating. There are no "redlinks at the bottom of the page" in respect of the other category which was deleted, and if I see it again I will nominate it for speedy deletion. It is out of order to say that the categories for discussion page cannot discuss the fate of a particular category. Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me clearly. Editors will recreate this category. Put simply, in order to get rid of this, the template must be editted, as a category redlink at the bottom of the page is much worse than another blue link in the list. In order to edit the template, you'll have to have consensus on the template talk. Going from here to there is completely backwards.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are plainly and demonstrably wrong as the similar category has not been recreated. A template cannot create a category without human intervention.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not confusing the two issues is exactly why I strongly suggest discussing it on the template talk page first. Deleting this category is pointless as it will be instantly recreated by using the templates unless said templates are first editted to not include the category.
siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. This is the page where we discuss how to optimise the category system. I am not proposing deletion of the templates as I don't have a problem with them, and the two issues should not be confused.
Chicheley 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "The category is vast may never be cleared", per Chicheley, this category obviously has plenty of demand. Additionally, the motivation presented for removing this category seems to be more about avoiding the problem of unsourced statement than optimizing categorization.
siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It proves nothing of the kind. All it proves is that the template is added to lots of articles, which is not under dispute. The category has only been added to the template once. You misinterpretation of the motivation is absolute. There is no motivation other than to optimize categorization by reducing the number of distracting categories which are of little use to readers and by allowing categories to be put in a sensible order manually, without clumsy interventions by software.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I misunderstand, it is only by reading your words. In particular: "If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system." The solution in this case is to remove the template from the article not eliminate the category altogether. The only reason removing it would prove impossible is if consensus is in favor of its presence. Eliminating the category is just a means of avoiding the problem.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- My words were clear enough. I am against the category, not the template. I want the category removed in all cases, and I am certainly not going to trawl through thousands of categories to look for cases where the template can be removed to reduce the damage done by the category.
Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, you argument that this category is used on excellent articles is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant, and your words were not clear enough.
siafu 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither meaningless nor irrelevant. It is intended to expose the way this category can misrepresent the situation if the template is added overenthusiatically or if it isn't removed when additional references are added. At the very least the current name is ill thought out, as it can be read as "Articles that lack any sources". Indeed if you asked people to consider the phrase cold, I would expect them to assume it to mean exactly that.
Chicheley 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is both; if there's a problem with its use on particular pages then the solution to that problem is much more specific than the deletion of the category. Whatever argument you make (including the ones you have) in favor of deleting the category outright are not supported by the fact that it's occasionally misused. The same goes for the choice of name.
siafu 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither; it is an example of one of the many problems with this category, the inclusion of which on an article is lamentable in every case.
Chicheley 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- A specific problem with some uses of a template does not provide support for general removal of all uses of the category. It's very simple.
siafu 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think I have made it very clear that in my opinion all uses of the template to add a category are bad, however some are even worse than others. Chicheley 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- A specific problem with some uses of a template does not provide support for general removal of all uses of the category. It's very simple.
siafu 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither; it is an example of one of the many problems with this category, the inclusion of which on an article is lamentable in every case.
Chicheley 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is both; if there's a problem with its use on particular pages then the solution to that problem is much more specific than the deletion of the category. Whatever argument you make (including the ones you have) in favor of deleting the category outright are not supported by the fact that it's occasionally misused. The same goes for the choice of name.
siafu 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is neither meaningless nor irrelevant. It is intended to expose the way this category can misrepresent the situation if the template is added overenthusiatically or if it isn't removed when additional references are added. At the very least the current name is ill thought out, as it can be read as "Articles that lack any sources". Indeed if you asked people to consider the phrase cold, I would expect them to assume it to mean exactly that.
Chicheley 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, you argument that this category is used on excellent articles is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant, and your words were not clear enough.
siafu 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- My words were clear enough. I am against the category, not the template. I want the category removed in all cases, and I am certainly not going to trawl through thousands of categories to look for cases where the template can be removed to reduce the damage done by the category.
Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I misunderstand, it is only by reading your words. In particular: "If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system." The solution in this case is to remove the template from the article not eliminate the category altogether. The only reason removing it would prove impossible is if consensus is in favor of its presence. Eliminating the category is just a means of avoiding the problem.
siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- It proves nothing of the kind. All it proves is that the template is added to lots of articles, which is not under dispute. The category has only been added to the template once. You misinterpretation of the motivation is absolute. There is no motivation other than to optimize categorization by reducing the number of distracting categories which are of little use to readers and by allowing categories to be put in a sensible order manually, without clumsy interventions by software.
Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 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)
- Delete as self reference. Hawkestone 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per well argued nomination. Casper Claiborne 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as deleting the category will not solve any of the problems raised. It is my personal opinion that the templates should only be used on talk pages to avoid clutter in the article and will solve the "impediment to navigation" problem the nom raises. Nom would also be wise to post actual statistics on the category itself. Discussion needs to be moved to template talk pages per siafu as deletion solves nothing. —
Viriditas |
Talk 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deletion may not be what you want, but it solves all the problems that bother me. The talk page suggestion is a non-starter as the category placement is generated by templats which should be no the article page. Chicheley 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Viriditas.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep category. C56C 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Passer-by 13:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The name is literally untrue in most cases and the category is needlessly self-denigratory. Honbicot 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Would one see this in a professional encyclopedia? Wikipedia needs to improve its standards of presentation. Nonomy 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The contents are totally random and this category is therefore useless for browsing.
Olborne 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a maintenance category. It's not meant for browsing. siafu 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles. The fact that necessary and used maintenance categories are proposed for deletion here, when being maintenance categories they are intended as links to articles that need fixing, just shows the ludicrousness of these deletion pages, not this category. But then looking at many of the comments on this page, it seems that a lot of users don't know what maintenance categories are and how they are used. They operate fundamentally differently to ordinary categories and once an article is fixed it is taken off the category.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 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)
- Delete Totally random connections are not category material. 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)
- Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the "encyclopedia every reader has to watch being edited". The user interface should be kept clean. Choalbaton 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It was editors, not readers, who made Wikipedia great. Besides: you know what looks even more amateurish than an unsourced article that says it's unsourced? Well, it's the unsourced article that doesn't say it's unsourced. But hey, that's the template not the category! The rationale for deletion is seriously fumbled.
GregorB 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is to be made great for readers. It would be of no significance without readers, and it would be a credit to Wikipedia if all editors would show the humility not put their needs first. Your rational is seriously fumbled as there is no proposal to remove the statements that articles need extra sources. It will still say it in the relevant place, but it will no longer superflously say it in another random and irrelevant place.
Chicheley 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you are saying that: 1) this category makes Wikipedia amateurish, while the template that says the same does not, and 2) this category distracts readers, while the much more obtrusive template that says the same does not. That doesn't make sense to me.
GregorB 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The template are a regrettable but necessary warning, but the category is redundant as a warning since the template is all that is needed for that purpose, and is merely an obstacle to navigation. A professional encyclopedia would not inflict such own goals, as they would suggest (and the suggestion is quite correct in the case of Wikipedia) that some of the editors are rather self absorbed and more interested in their own needs than the needs of readers. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you are saying that: 1) this category makes Wikipedia amateurish, while the template that says the same does not, and 2) this category distracts readers, while the much more obtrusive template that says the same does not. That doesn't make sense to me.
GregorB 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is to be made great for readers. It would be of no significance without readers, and it would be a credit to Wikipedia if all editors would show the humility not put their needs first. Your rational is seriously fumbled as there is no proposal to remove the statements that articles need extra sources. It will still say it in the relevant place, but it will no longer superflously say it in another random and irrelevant place.
Chicheley 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as requested. Ramseystreet 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sumahoy 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "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 fact that it makes "Wikipedia look amateurish" by being early in the list of categories is unconvincing, since there are plenty of other examples of categories that do this (for example, stub categories can appear pretty much anywhere in the list). The fact that it is "sometimes found on excellent articles" is a reason to remove it in those cases, not to delete the category. 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).
- So you are arguing that a bad category should be kept because there are other bad categories. 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)
- Delete per nom. ReeseM 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The title is misleading and the category is not useful a navigational aid. Landolitan 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If the category is deleted, there's always Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Unreferenced. — Keenan Pepper 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: wrong venue, per Variable. On the substantiative question: keep anyway, the "professionalism" arguments against maintenance "self-references" are seriously wrong-headed. The way for the "professionalism" of Wikipedia to be increased is to improve the article contents to be in line with our own defined standards, not to sweep identified problems with articles under the rug to make the article page look superficially better. 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)
- Comment What that amounts to is that you think the discussion should be restricted to people who use this category. Don't you think that might be a rather skewed sample? It is nonsense to suggest that deleting this category will sweep a problem under the carpet.
Merchbow 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- In what way does it amount to any such thing? I don't use the category, so I'm arguing that my own comment should be discounted, in some way I didn't notice? You inference seems poorly grounded. However, I do think the people discussing this should give some consideration to people who use it as a cleanup resource (which isn't to say I imagine they will, especially not retrospectively, or that this should or would be any sort of "restriction" on said discussion). As opposed to giving such inordinate weight to the "makes the article looks less nice" argument. It speaks, not of prioritising readers over editors, but of prioritising the appearance of professionalism, over actual concern for facilitating achieving real professional standards.
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- People who use the category will see the nomination notice. Good presentation is part of real professionalism. I would be surprised if you could find a professional reference book editor who would disagree with that. As has been said before, the template appears in the article, so the inference that deleting the category will amount to some sort of cover-up in nonsensical. Merchbow 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- In what way does it amount to any such thing? I don't use the category, so I'm arguing that my own comment should be discounted, in some way I didn't notice? You inference seems poorly grounded. However, I do think the people discussing this should give some consideration to people who use it as a cleanup resource (which isn't to say I imagine they will, especially not retrospectively, or that this should or would be any sort of "restriction" on said discussion). As opposed to giving such inordinate weight to the "makes the article looks less nice" argument. It speaks, not of prioritising readers over editors, but of prioritising the appearance of professionalism, over actual concern for facilitating achieving real professional standards.
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What that amounts to is that you think the discussion should be restricted to people who use this category. Don't you think that might be a rather skewed sample? It is nonsense to suggest that deleting this category will sweep a problem under the carpet.
Merchbow 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Inaccurate, annoying and, as per —
Keenan Pepper also redundant. On the basis of his information it may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted.
Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that conclusion pretty much makes my point for me. If your sole aim is making the category list look as reader-friendly as possible, without regard to editing concerns, then agitate for
WP:STATIC,
WP:STABLE, and a namespace distinction between article-space and other categories in software, that would facilitate configuration for "tidying up" the appearance of the article, without interfering with its development as a work-in-progress. Oh, and do something about
Category:Living people, for a start (a "maintenance category" its impossible to remove by "maintenance" actibvity (well, short of wetwork, at least)). And "inaccuate" in what way? There are no articles on wikipedia that lack sources? Or are you arguing for deletion to cure actual or prevent possible misuse?
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
WP:STATIC and
WP:STABLE are irrelevant to this matter, but in any case I don't think they are viable, so I will not be acting on your suggestion. As for
Category:Living people, like many Wikipedians, I would love to see the back of it, but Jimbo Wales won't allow it. The existence of one flaw should never be used as an excuse to preserve other flaws. The name of this category is inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because many of the articles in it have some sources. One can quibble the precise meaning of the word "lacking", but it is certain that some people would misunderstand the present name.
Merchbow 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not holding my breath about any of the above being implemented in any sort of hurry either, but they're logical courses if one takes the view that "wikipedia must look as 'professional' as possible, and editorial convenience can go jump in the lake", which seems to be the spirit of this nom, and the implied intent to delete every other such text-oriented rather than topic-oriented category. They're certainly not irrelevant, as they speak to the same urge to "protect" readers from the "beware, under construction" aspects that otherwise pretty inherent to wikpedia (or indeed, wiki-anything). OTOH, category namespace separation has been floated by one of the devs, so I assume it isn't horrifically unlikely, and would certainly be a much more general "solution" to the alleged "problem". No idea if the idea went any place after that, though. This isn't a matter of one flaw justifying another: no case has been made to my satisfaction there's any actual flaw here. If an article's "issues" are sufficient to merit a "warning" template, the presence of a category asserting the same condition can hardly be an undue impediment in any real sense. Removing one, and keeping the other, has about the same effect as far as a reader is concerned, but is clearly much less useful for editors. Talk-page-ising them would regain most of the category benefits, though the double-tagged would obviously mean double-handling, and almost immediately lead to inconsistency between the two. There's nothing inherently inaccurate about the category: if it's being misused, that should be fixed by removing template usages, not by removing the category, and leaving template misuses that much more "out of sight and out of mind" -- and thus that much more likely to stay that way. If it's ambiguous as to degree of unsourcedness, it should be renamed, or split into Category:Articles requiring additional sources and Category:Articles with no sources, or something to that effect. (I hereby predict that if this is deleted, it'll be recreated under some such name, whereupon there will be shouts of "G4!", without much consideration of potentially different scope.) We do seem to agree on one thing: that the 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)
-
WP:STATIC and
WP:STABLE are irrelevant to this matter, but in any case I don't think they are viable, so I will not be acting on your suggestion. As for
Category:Living people, like many Wikipedians, I would love to see the back of it, but Jimbo Wales won't allow it. The existence of one flaw should never be used as an excuse to preserve other flaws. The name of this category is inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because many of the articles in it have some sources. One can quibble the precise meaning of the word "lacking", but it is certain that some people would misunderstand the present name.
Merchbow 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that conclusion pretty much makes my point for me. If your sole aim is making the category list look as reader-friendly as possible, without regard to editing concerns, then agitate for
WP:STATIC,
WP:STABLE, and a namespace distinction between article-space and other categories in software, that would facilitate configuration for "tidying up" the appearance of the article, without interfering with its development as a work-in-progress. Oh, and do something about
Category:Living people, for a start (a "maintenance category" its impossible to remove by "maintenance" actibvity (well, short of wetwork, at least)). And "inaccuate" in what way? There are no articles on wikipedia that lack sources? Or are you arguing for deletion to cure actual or prevent possible misuse?
Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Twittenham 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments already made. Calsicol 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Osomec 22:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a little more juducious use, and the deletion of that lame template I pissed off some Euro-environmentalist by pointing out (with references) that something wasn't as dangerous as the EU would lead one to believe, and the next day, every other article I ever worked on has these 'administrative' tags and 'categories' pinned to the top. I don't even bother to submit to political articles because one needs massive citations to avoid having your stuff watered down to NPOV, even when a politician is 99% evil. Similarly I don't do 'heavy' science articles unless I'm willing to verify my content. My example is Blinkies which I wrote and someone put this tag on. I looked all over the internet for a patent or something to no avail. All I can say is that they exist, I've bought hundereds of them, I can (and did) give web adddresses for dozens of companies that sell them (with pictures). In short, I am the source and for something as trivial as a blinky toy it's a little pretentious to require me to 'prove' they exist. I do like the small citation mark that's in some articles, that lets me know there may be some doubt as to that one statment's accuracy or neutrality.
- Tiki God 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a little work too I've also noticed that the sources for an article are often in other similar articles. It took me 2 minutes to find the IEC/ ANSI codes for the size and voltage of an AA battery over in List of battery sizes. It seems to me that template spammers just throw this up and don't bother to look (even on Wikipedia) for a source, which is really annoying considering that it goes at the top of a the page. One shouldn't be able to put up that lame template unless they actually spent at least 5 minutes looking for a source.
- Tiki God 12:05, 29 July 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.
Category:Rapid transit systems that operate around the clock to Category:24-hour rapid transit systems
Category:Articles with multiple video files
Category:Israel and Zionism to Category:Zionism
Category:Current national leaders who are relatives of a former leader
- 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 delete -- Kbdank71 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggest (a) rename to Category:National leaders related to a former leader; or (b) Category:Current national leaders related to a former leader if (to be) watched; or (c) delete as overly contingent. David Kernow 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per (c). (a) is a total non starter as until the last 200 years about 98% of national leaders were related to a former leader, ie they were members of a royal family. Second choice is (b). Choalbaton 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial, and as mentioned, monarchies would overwhelm the category. siafu 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Family circumstances are rarely worth categorizing. Hawkestone 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename
Category:Elected political leaders related to a former leader. Is a worthwhile category when focused on elected, not hereditary leaders (e.g., The two president George Bush, the Chamberlain brothers in the UK, two prime ministers father and son called Cosgrave in Ireland, etc etc.)
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Serves no purpose. C56C 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, though I wouldn't oppose a better, more concise remake... Michael 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is human interest trivia, not a serious encyclopedic political category. Athenaeum 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per user:Jtdirl. — Insta ntnood 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is POV to assume that this is an essential characteristic of any modern politicians; shades of "Bush Family Conspiracy Theory" and that kind of thing. Piccadilly 20:56, 26 July 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.
Beach Boys and Beatles singles
Category:Famous Tests
Category:Postal codes of the United States to Category:ZIP codes of the United States
Category:Heavy metal singers by nationality to Category:Heavy metal singers
Category:Wrestlers who have died