Talk:The black ball final

Discussion
Per Categorizing redirects there is no need for this redirect to be categorised. wjemather bigissue 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there is. From the guideline, The primary function of the category system is to allow readers to browse through articles. The category system is often used like an alphabetical index. It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternate names to appear in the index list.. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that I am not the only editor who has reverted your addition of this category. Incidentally, the guideline starts by saying "most redirects should not be categorized." Can you imagine the mess if every redirect were categorised?
 * Anyway, I think that the key is the title of the section you have quoted from. Is this really an alternate title of just a legitimate search term? I think that it is the latter, in which case it should not be categorised.
 * Also, why pick this one to categorise instead of Black ball final? wjemather bigissue 23:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to imagine scenarios that are totally irrelevant? Let's focus on why you think you are improving the pedia by removing one single redirect from a cateogry of 75 pages on the basis that you think it is unneccessary. And yes, 'black ball final' is easily an alternate title for this final. This is easily verifiable "the black ball final" -wikipedia. And it is hardly a major issue, but it is more logical to categorise the 'the' form of the redirect to avoid the potential confusion that it might be a generic article about the concept of 'a' black ball final, although it's unlikely that ever would be an article, and if it was, it would not be in that tree anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is no need that this page should be categorized. The article to which this redirect is targeted is already in the category. I think a redirect should only categorized if it redirect to a section, because section can't be categorized. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can have your own personal ideas about what should and should not be cateogrised all you want, but your opinion is not supported by the guideline, which is the representation of the views of thousands of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed the issue. As Armbrust says, the final this redirects to is already listed in the category. It is unnecessary for it to appear twice (or more). As such there is no value to categorising this redirect.
 * Your google search with less than 1k results indicates that it is a viable search term, but compared with the 12,000+ results for "1985 world snooker final", or 23,000+ results for "1985 world snooker championship final", it cannot be called an alternative title. It is quite clear to me that this redirect should not be categorised. wjemather bigissue 02:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you both have completely missed the point of the guideline - it is totally irrelevant that the page is already in the category once. And 1k results is more than enough, this seriously looks like nit picking now, the guideline does not demand that we actually have to have a dummy run Requested Move to decide. Just use your common sense - from a recognition POV using your figures, it is simply not remotely believable that 22 out of 23 people would know that the black ball final was in 1985. I would think it was the reverse actually. Your opposition to something useful to the reader at zero cost to the pedia is frankly baffling. Have either of you actually got a practical reason for this objection? From where I'm sitting, this is looking like a case of 'it's of no use to me, so it must be of no use to anybody else'. Well, the guidelines are written to set aside that kind of viewpoint and consider all options, and without a good reason, there's no reason to ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not nit-picking. You used a simple google search to justify your contention that the phrase is a legitimate alternative title. I countered by showing just how little the phrase is actually used in comparison to illustrate that in fact it is not a legitimate alternative title, as required by the guideline. If your opinion is going to stand up then you need to show why it satisfies this part of the guideline. Incidentally, many of the results in your search are in fact referring to the Snooker Loopy show and tour.
 * Presenting fictional statistics regarding potential readers does not do anything to make your case either. Personally, I would have thought that anyone who knows about the black ball final is likely to know who was in it and when it was. The sum total of your argument seems to be fit neatly into WP:NOHARM (and yes I know that refers to deletion discussions, but the principle still applies). wjemather bigissue 09:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, as I said before, if you were going to categorise, it would be Black ball final not this, which fits with standard naming policy. wjemather bigissue 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't care what name it is categorised under, I care that your only justification for removing the functionality is your personal opinion that "anyone who knows about the black ball final is likely to know who was in it and when it was", which I think is a ludicrous suggestion. The principle of NOHARM doesn't apply here at all, for a very good reason, categorisation of alternate redirects cost the pedia nothing, it really has jack all to do with inclusionism/deletionism. I will say again, your vehement oposition to something so innoccuous is really frankly bizarre. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Categorizing_redirects guideline also states:


 * Most redirects should not be categorized. There are some situations where categorizing a redirect is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories.


 * The general rule here is that redirects should not be categorised except where it satisfies one of the exceptions. The only exception it could possibly satisfy is Categorizing_redirects. However, the "black ball final" is a colliquialism - it is not a name that is recognised in any official capacity so I don't think the case is strong enough for it to be categorised.  However, I'm not an authority how those guidelines are meant to be interpreted and I think the best way to settle this would be to post a request at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects and ask someone impartial to offer an opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline is not intended for official names only, that really wouldn't make any sense. Just because it is a colloquialism does not mean people would not be looking for it under that name in the category. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is. The guidelines clearly allow for it, I'm just questioning the case for it.  I think most people searching for "black ball final" would just type it into the search box rather than search through the category which primarily exists to organise the articles for administrative purposes, and the article is already included under its proper title.  Personally I wouldn't have reverted you, but if a decision is required that's just where I stand. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the guideline exist because assumptions like "I think most people searching for "black ball final" would just type it into the search box rather than search through the category", are not necessarily valid. If that were the case, then there would be a blanket ban on the practice, not just a restriction on plausible titles, as there is no administrative purpose for ever categorising a page twice. It is allowed precisely to facilitate use of the category system as a human searchable index, as it clearly states. I actually use the category system a lot in this manner, it is often much quicker than the search box if you are a veteran editor. People really should not assume that their common practices are everybody's common practices, and the guidelines are written with that in mind, as the collective wisdom of all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the category to Black ball final as suggested above. This would seem to satisfy everyone so perhaps we can stop the lame edit war now? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently not. This is ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not suggested above as far as I can see. The same argument against categorisation here applies equally there. What I did was merely point out that hypothetically it would be that redirect, not this one, that would be the obvious choice for such a category were it be deemed desirable. wjemather bigissue 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my post refers to Armbrust's apparent wish to ignore this discussion, and carry on reverting people . MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, un-fucking believable. You two are taking the absolute piss now. You have no wish to discuss this at all, let alone prove you have a clue about this guideline. You are a disgrace. I'm out, I'm unwatching both redirects and this discussion, and you two can have your tag-teaming victory, and be satisfied that you've fucked with the pedia to make it correct for your perceptions of what is and isn't required, and have shit all over anyboy else's view, and the inherent consensus of the guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)