Content deleted Content added
→[[List of chefs]]: Maintainability's still a big problem |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''Keep''', the nomination is wrong, there are plenty of annotations, and fictional chefs are in their own distinct "fictional chefs" section. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', the nomination is wrong, there are plenty of annotations, and fictional chefs are in their own distinct "fictional chefs" section. [[User:Kappa|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. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] 01:41, 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. [[User:Mandsford|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 '''[[Gastronome|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 [[ |
:'''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 '''[[Gastronome|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 [[list guidelines]], 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? [[User:Sidatio|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. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:01, 13 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 list guidelines, 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)