→[[List of chefs]]: Simmer, Kappa. |
HisSpaceResearch (talk | contribs) weak keep |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::*'''Comment''': All right, [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] - [[WP:CIV|relax]]. It's just an article - no one's trying to take your house. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] and [[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] are offering you sound advice - you might want to take it. [[User:Sidatio|Sidatio]] 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
::*'''Comment''': All right, [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] - [[WP:CIV|relax]]. It's just an article - no one's trying to take your house. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] and [[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] are offering you sound advice - you might want to take it. [[User:Sidatio|Sidatio]] 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::What people are trying to do is give me a shitty encylopedia where I have to play retarded guessing games to find the articles I am looking for. In the process they are wasting all the time I try to put in to make something better. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Furthermore they continuously prove they lack the ability for even grasp the problem, like this vote from Phirazo, and the one below. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' - per nom. This is a redundant, unmanagable list. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - per nom. This is a redundant, unmanagable list. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak keep'''. It's not trivial information as it does categorise people in a useful way (by occupation), but then again it could just exist as a category.-'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:55, 14 August 2007
List of chefs
- List of chefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Nominated per WP:LISTCRUFT - namely:
- The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - There are little to no summaries of listed articles; several are also redlinks.
- The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list.
- The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.
Most of the notable entries on the list are already in Category:Chefs, so having this list around really isn't necessary, productive, or efficient. Therefore, I propose the article be deleted. Sidatio 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely a job for a category. - Richfife 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with the nominator, particularly the unlimited/unmaintainable aspects. The inclusion criteria (just being called a "chef") is far too broad. ◄Zahakiel► 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the nomination is wrong, there are plenty of annotations, and fictional chefs are in their own distinct "fictional chefs" section. Kappa 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Oddly, there's a category, but it's limited to "American chefs". Leave this up until we get a category that recognizes that the blue-linked chefs aren't limited to the USA. I can't agree that this is unmaintainable, nor that the inclusion is too simple. Nobody is going to make it on to this list simply by grilling hamburgers over the weekend. Mandsford 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Decent arguments, but the list is still far too open-ended to be maintainable. Regardless of whether or not the fictional chefs have their own section, they're still included on the list. That just adds to the incredible amount of maintenance this list would require. Also, it's not just chefs on this list; it also allows notable gastronomes, which can apply to a wide range of people in a wide range of professions. Further, the list doesn't distinguish based on any other criteria as outlined above - living, dead, male, female, American, Spanish, whatever. All one would have to be is a notable chef, and with a large amount of culinary publications, shows, and other notable sources available, it's definitely an issue. It just doesn't conform to WP:LISTCRUFT, and would take an unreasonable amount of work to do so - especially when categorization is a far less-intensive alternative. Are there any arguments that would address those important issues? Sidatio 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK WP:LISTCRUFT is not a guideline, it's just POV deletionist bullshit do not lie about what it is. Kappa 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please try to be more civil with your comments; it is perfectly reasonable to point out that WP:LISTCRUFT is, in fact, an essay that reflects the views of its author and not the Wikipedia community. It is, however, not necessarily to call that author's opinion "POV deletionist bullshit." Thanks for your contributions and for your participation in this debate. Best, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that that author chooses to insult other members of the community and misrepresent their motives. It's doubly unfortunate that other editors follow this lead. Kappa 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Calling a perfectly reasonable essay against far too open-ended lists "POV deletionist bullshit" is just pointless. And in this case it feels like someone's being a very black pot. Everything that is short of keeping for lack of proper policies to ruleslawyer isn't rabid deletionism.
- Peter Isotalo 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that that author chooses to insult other members of the community and misrepresent their motives. It's doubly unfortunate that other editors follow this lead. Kappa 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please try to be more civil with your comments; it is perfectly reasonable to point out that WP:LISTCRUFT is, in fact, an essay that reflects the views of its author and not the Wikipedia community. It is, however, not necessarily to call that author's opinion "POV deletionist bullshit." Thanks for your contributions and for your participation in this debate. Best, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK WP:LISTCRUFT is not a guideline, it's just POV deletionist bullshit do not lie about what it is. Kappa 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a useful step towards the development of further articles. This is one of the recognized functions of Lists in WP. DGG (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete list of loosely associated topics and should be replaced with a category. We do not need infinite lists of people by profession Corpx 06:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Lists are useful in some cases, but category suffices here. Create a category for fictional chefs as well. Besides, I don't see any red links, so the usual "it encourages creation of new articles" argument is not valid here. utcursch | talk 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you force users to play retarded guessing games instead of helping them to find articles of interest? Kappa 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unmanagable category-ish list. Lists need to be far more specific since there must be thousands and thousands of chefs suitable for articles, whether they be living, dead or fictional. Peter Isotalo 10:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Is it just me, or does it seem like every time I nominate or endorse the deletion of a list, I get a heapin' helpin' dose of incivility? I'm starting to see a pattern.
For starters, my apologies - I'm still a little new here and I didn't realize that WP:LISTCRUFT wasn't policy, per se. (You'd think I'd notice the big box at the top of the essay, but there it is.) I think those are pretty efficient guidelines, but that's another argument. It also doesn't change the fact that the article is inherently unmanageable per the arguments outlined above; primarily its maintainability, an issue that still doesn't seem to have been addressed. Further, I wouldn't exactly term myself "deletionist". I did, after all, chime in to keep such articles as the Stanford Mendicants and put my reputation on the line for a hip-hop clothing company I had never heard of before. For someone who wants to keep so many articles, Kappa, one would think you'd be an ace researcher. You may want to research a person's contributions next time before you go slinging names.
Anything further about my views toward articles, intelligence level, or pants size can be discussed on my talk page. Oh, and Kappa? Please don't edit my comments in the future without informing me. Thank you. Sidatio 11:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were a deletionist, please try to follow the discussion. Kappa 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that you're not denying that you edited his comments. Needless to say, that's a no-no, and I'd be more pissed than Sidatio if it happened to me. Not saying that you did it, but IF you did (easy to check) you owe the guy an apology rather than a smart remark. I like that you're trying to defend articles, but we defenders need all the help that we can get. Dial it down a few notches. Mandsford 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding editing his comments, I don't know how that happened, I may have done it by mistake, perhaps I hit ctrl-x instead of ctrl-c. I apologize for my carelessness. Kappa 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I notice that you're not denying that you edited his comments. Needless to say, that's a no-no, and I'd be more pissed than Sidatio if it happened to me. Not saying that you did it, but IF you did (easy to check) you owe the guy an apology rather than a smart remark. I like that you're trying to defend articles, but we defenders need all the help that we can get. Dial it down a few notches. Mandsford 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were a deletionist, please try to follow the discussion. Kappa 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: For those interested, I've opened up a discussion on whether or not it is prudent to make an official policy or guideline to be used in regards to the creation and retention of lists:
Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists
Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fully covered by a range of categories, such as Category:Chefs by nationality, Category:Chefs, etc. etc. No one has to "play retarded guessing games" to find articles on chefs, as Kappa put it. Also, Kappa, you might want to read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. --Phirazo 17:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- No there are no guessing games if ALL YOU WANT IS A RANDOM ARTICLE on a chef. Kappa 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: All right, Kappa - relax. It's just an article - no one's trying to take your house. Mandsford and Phirazo are offering you sound advice - you might want to take it. Sidatio 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- What people are trying to do is give me a shitty encylopedia where I have to play retarded guessing games to find the articles I am looking for. In the process they are wasting all the time I try to put in to make something better. Kappa 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore they continuously prove they lack the ability for even grasp the problem, like this vote from Phirazo, and the one below. Kappa 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. This is a redundant, unmanagable list. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's not trivial information as it does categorise people in a useful way (by occupation), but then again it could just exist as a category.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)