Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) →Bold change: Award recipients: further comment |
→Bold change: Award recipients: Support |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:::It would seem to me that any setting of a boundary—even if approximate—would be arbitrary. It's open to you to argue that consensus should change but you can't change the guideline that represents past and current consensus without some evidence that it has indeed changed. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::It would seem to me that any setting of a boundary—even if approximate—would be arbitrary. It's open to you to argue that consensus should change but you can't change the guideline that represents past and current consensus without some evidence that it has indeed changed. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' The current wording is entirely unworkable and arbitrary. Kudos to DGG for offering an effective compromise here despite the usual obstinacy to any meaningful change at CfD. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== A possible exception to [[WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE]] == |
== A possible exception to [[WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE]] == |
Revision as of 04:25, 3 February 2010
Deletion
Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no reason for this policy. The more categories the better. Clutter is not a problem, as the categories are alphabetical. If you can follow the alphabet you can find the category you are looking for. With no objections I will send this page to VFD. Bensaccount (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Its been a week of silence. If you care if this project page gets deleted speak up now. Bensaccount (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a long established guideline. Categories are not the same as articles, and "the more the better" has never been the consensus of the community. Articles with hundreds of trivial or meaningless categories would not be useful to anyone. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not long or well established. I left it for a week and you are the first person to object. More pages in categories would be useful for people who want to find articles from categories. That is what categories are for. If you object to more categories why not object to ALL categories? Bensaccount (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at the example categories, they all point to the CFD discussions that led to the deletions. This page documents the norms of categorization, has existed for years, and was created after quite a bit of discussion. If you disagree, try recreating some of these categories and see how far you get. If you seriously want to change the nature of categorization, you should start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not long or well established. I left it for a week and you are the first person to object. More pages in categories would be useful for people who want to find articles from categories. That is what categories are for. If you object to more categories why not object to ALL categories? Bensaccount (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You seem intent on appealing to bureaucracy to prevent any reasonable changes here (and on other pages). I will try to find someone who can provide a reason for keeping this. Just because something exists and has been discussed doesn't mean it should exist. Bensaccount (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You may nominate this for deletion if you'd like. Ignoring all rules is one thing, but ignoring all the people who work on categorization is another. Wikipedia's categorization system is not a free-form tagging system. It has evolved to be what it is -- which I will be the first to admit is a flawed system -- by balancing several different world views on what a categorization system should be. You can try and totally change that if you'd like, but I don't think you will get far, and that is why I responded as I did. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this page should stay (though it could doubtless be much improved). We need something that at least attempts to demarcate the line between categories that should and should not be created. (And if the intent of the deletion would be to make it acceptable to create unlimited numbers of categories, then I'd certainly be opposed. Adding lots of less useful categories detracts from the value of the more useful ones, by making them harder to find.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You seem intent on appealing to bureaucracy to prevent any reasonable changes here (and on other pages). I will try to find someone who can provide a reason for keeping this. Just because something exists and has been discussed doesn't mean it should exist. Bensaccount (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- What we really need is a way of organizing categories. Which should be a software fix. Like on my user page I would like to divide it up into say music, literature, etc. Nevertheless, the categories serve primarily to find the article from the category. Not the other way around. So unlimited categories is still an improvement. Bensaccount (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know what you mean by a way of organizing categories. It sounds like you want your own personal tags. You can do something like this by creating lists of articles by your own organization scheme and keep the lists in your user-space. So you could have User:Bensaccount/Music and User:Bensaccount/Literature. You can add links to whatever articles you want. This is also useful for creating watchlists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- What we really need is a way of organizing categories. Which should be a software fix. Like on my user page I would like to divide it up into say music, literature, etc. Nevertheless, the categories serve primarily to find the article from the category. Not the other way around. So unlimited categories is still an improvement. Bensaccount (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I mean it should be possible to move them around on the page and organize them. I am using my user page as an example, but its the article pages that matter. Bensaccount (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdenting) How does moving them around the page have any effect on how articles are being categorized? What do you have in mind? I've seen some proposals that would allow pull down lists and hierarchical arrangements of categories. There have been lots of proposals that could have an effect on categorization. I've worked on some of them myself (see WP:CI). If any of these proposals become a reality, which is to say that a developer makes them happen, then we may have to consider changing the categorization guidelines accordingly. WP:CI for example, would necessitate some major changes. But until any upgrades happen, we have to work with the system we have. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lol—any proposals to eliminate the deletion of categories should probably be run by WT:CFD. Such a proposal won't be seen by many eyes here—CFD is where the action on this front is. You might also want to recognize the notice at the top of this page, which directs you to cite CFDs in making proposals. That should be a pretty clear sign that this page is a secondary reference page for that work project. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Bold change: Award recipients
I have just made a rather WP:BOLD change, to reflect what looks like clearly developing consensus at a number of CfDs , e.g. the one for Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7, rewriting the text as follows:
- If the winners of a notable competition are most of them not individually notable, there should normally be only a list, not a category. However, if the recipients are mostly notable enough to have individual Wikipedia articles or being obviously qualified for articles, a list and a category are both necessary. This is especially the case If the award is so important that all those receiving it will necessarily have a Wikipedia article.
I think this will provide a more appropriater guideline than the previous text, and avoid the need for multiple CfDs. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- And per WP:BRD, I have reverted the change.
- Fistly, it's better to seeek consenus before changing a guideline rather than afterwards.
- Secondly, it;s very dodgy to rewrite a guideline to suit your POV in an open CFD
- And thirdly, it's downright sneaky to to claim an "emerging consenus" at a CFD which has been extensively canvassed in these edits, as you well know, since you are one of those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose the proposed change. This proposal goes against years of consensus in dozens of CFDs. (Annoyingly extensive list going back to 2005 available here.) The overwhelming majority of cases where award categories are nominated results in deletion of the category. The proposed criterion arbitarily sets the delete/keep boundary at "most", which presumably means 50%+1. We shouldn't be locked in to such a formulaic method, since often individual circumstances do matter. Incidentally, I had to close the discussions in question as being tainted by extensive canvassing, so as BHG says they are probably not the best thing to base an "emerging consensus" upon. But even if the discussions were valid, I don't see a consensus there that supports this circular reasoning. DGG was the only one to express it, as far as I can see. It is expressed more clearly here than in some of the discussions, where it was phrased in an entirely circular manner of logic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be continuing to argue for keeping all such categories at CfD that are in any way reasonable. I find that's usually the best way to start to change consensus. But just for clarity, the word "most" at Wikipedia usually does not imply a fixed , but rather an approximate boundary, & I';d be glad to change the wording to more clearly indicate that. And actually, I considered that a compromise--I'd prefer a lower boundary, at about 1/4, not 1/2 notable. Things are otherwise too busy to open another general discussion now, but I'll be back. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would seem to me that any setting of a boundary—even if approximate—would be arbitrary. It's open to you to argue that consensus should change but you can't change the guideline that represents past and current consensus without some evidence that it has indeed changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support The current wording is entirely unworkable and arbitrary. Kudos to DGG for offering an effective compromise here despite the usual obstinacy to any meaningful change at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
A possible exception to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE
- Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Examples include such subjective words as: famous, notable, great, etc; any reference to size: large, small, tall, short, etc; or distance: near, far, etc; or character trait: beautiful, evil, friendly, greedy, honest, intelligent, old, popular, ugly, young, etc.
The project page states that there are occasional exceptions to what's there, and I think I've found one. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, certain poets became known for their awful poetry. I don't mean just a bad critical reaction. I mean the badness of their poetry was so celebrated and laughed at and remarked upon that it was the reason people read them. Wikipedia's articles on these poets (all dead) note in the lead sections of each that the awfulness of their poetry was the basis of their notability, and sources are in each article. There really is nothing more important about the subjects of these articles than the fact that they were so bad they were laughed at. In one case, James McIntyre (poet) the subject appears to have been in on the joke. In all cases, the universal reaction was that their typical poetry was not only awful, but laughable.
I created Category:Poetasters -- "poetaster" meaning "bad poet", but the category has a description further limiting inclusion: This category covers poets who achieved fame for typically writing verse widely viewed, almost universally by critics and commentators, as utterly awful. There are three hoops for an article to jump through to be included: "typically writing" (eliminating poets who occasionally write an awful poem) "verse widely viewed, almost universally by critics and commentators" (eliminating poets whose work is panned by only some critics) "utterly awful" (eliminating simply negative reviews). All of these criteria can and should be sourced.
The category is up for deletion here [1] and editors familiar with this guideline could make very good contributions to that discussion, or critique my reasoning here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)