User:Dawnleelynn/RFC sandbox

Hi, I just copied this content in from Pigsonthewing's user page so as not to disturb him again. Just for history sake. Below this section you will find what I came up with for the RFC. It's probably too long. Could you just take a quick look at least?

Hi I think my ping did not work...last time I try though. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hall of Fame CfDs
Hi Andy, suggested I ask your opinion on some CfDs. I think they should be kept, but perhaps there are some guidelines I am not familiar with? The editor is back after a hiatus, and she has started creating CfDs to delete HoF categories again. The one I am actively involved in now is Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15 but there are others. Just looking for advice, not advocacy. Thanks for listening. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In such cases, it's often better to make a decision at a policy level, rather than on a piecemeal basis; for that you need an RfC: see WP:RfC. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Andy, I'll take a look. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was reading about this article yesterday and today. Then I noticed a little while ago that under WP:RFCNOT it says CfDs. So, that's not going to work. But I'll just go on with this one as it is. I still appreciate the thought. I also asked Ser Amantio di Nicolao for advice per Montanabw, and he says he thinks I have a better handle on the guidelines than he does, so I must be doing the best that can be done with this one. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you'll end up by having to establish what exceptions to WP:OCAWARD could and should exist. That is an editing guideline, and stating that generally "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category" is going to sink your arguments to keep the categories for award recipients. If you have to rely on the "defining characteristic" exception, you'll probably lose the debate in most of the cases at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15, because it's difficult to convince others that receiving the award defined a particular successful horse, rather than their career, for example.
 * I suggest that you'd have more luck in attempting to clarify the part of the guidance that states "(though there are a few exceptions to this),[clarification needed]", and an RfC is the correct vehicle for clarifying an editing guideline.
 * You would have to present an argument that there is a distinct, definable set of articles whose subjects have received an award, where a category containing them would confer benefits beyond a simple list article that contains the same. I imagine you might be able to argue that having categories is the usual means on Wikipedia of providing easy navigation to related articles. You ought to establish that the set of articles would be a well-defined, coherent, exhaustive group that would very likely be of sufficient interest to readers that they would wish to read many of them. That fits the fundamental purpose of categorisation, rather than a stand-alone list (which is principally not a navigation aid, but an encyclopedic enumeration of potential articles on a particular topic). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Long time no see! Thanks very much for your thoughtful and detailed message. I'll digest this for a bit first and it should be very helpful I think. I'll let you know. This would be my first time doing something like this but I'm willing.dawnleelynn(talk) 20:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you'd have more luck in attempting to clarify the part of the guidance that states "(though there are a few exceptions to this),[clarification needed]", and an RfC is the correct vehicle for clarifying an editing guideline.
 * You would have to present an argument that there is a distinct, definable set of articles whose subjects have received an award, where a category containing them would confer benefits beyond a simple list article that contains the same. I imagine you might be able to argue that having categories is the usual means on Wikipedia of providing easy navigation to related articles. You ought to establish that the set of articles would be a well-defined, coherent, exhaustive group that would very likely be of sufficient interest to readers that they would wish to read many of them. That fits the fundamental purpose of categorisation, rather than a stand-alone list (which is principally not a navigation aid, but an encyclopedic enumeration of potential articles on a particular topic). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Long time no see! Thanks very much for your thoughtful and detailed message. I'll digest this for a bit first and it should be very helpful I think. I'll let you know. This would be my first time doing something like this but I'm willing.dawnleelynn(talk) 20:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia talk: Award recipients

In general (though there are a few exceptions to this),[clarification needed] recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic.

The guidance states "(though there are a few exceptions to this),[clarification needed]"

Should we add that "hall of fame articles have benefits beyond a simple list article that contains the same" as an exception?


 * The hall of fame award is the recognition of lifetime achievement and contribution, unlike other awards. The criteria is very specific. Many are nominated; few are selected. List articles display all of the inductees while categories show just the ones with articles.
 * Categories can make navigation easier. For example, in the article List of ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees, there are many links with no article and it takes time to find the ones with articles. The category displays just the ones with articles.
 * Categories can also display different types of inductees. In the some of the cowboy hall of fame articles, for example, all of the inductees are together in one article (cowboys and livestock). Separate categories can be made for each one. Like the categories Category:AQHA Hall of Fame (horses) and Category:AQHA Hall of Fame (members).

--

Facts: List of ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees:
 * More than 100 are nominated each year, only a few are selected.
 * In 2020, there are eight chosen.
 * Since 1979, people 256, animals 32, and rodeo committees 28 inducted.

List of Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame inductees
 * 2020 five selected

AQHA Hall of Fame 2020
 * Six horses and four members
 * American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame

Might be a good example for men
 * List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees
 * Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees

This is how I'd structure it:

RfC on exceptions to WP:OCAWARD
There is a request for clarification in the guidance at Overcategorization

RFC link goes here

Should we add "A typical exception would be where there is an exhaustive set of articles connected by a single, well-defined award, such that a reader is likely to want to browse them as a group"?

Background
WP:OCAWARD currently reads:

To help clarify these "few exceptions", we should consider cases where having a category is preferable to a list. There exist a number of awards where the recipients form a comprehensive set of articles, and where we may expect readers' interest in one of the recipient's article to extend to many other recipients' articles. Categories are designed to aim that sort of navigation from article to article. On the other hand, lists often contain red links as one of their purposes is to enumerate a set of examples of a topic regardless of their individual notabilities.

Examples:
 * The Beatles are in Category:Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award winners, Category:Brit Award winners, Category:World Music Awards winners, and Category:Best Original Music Score Academy Award winners. Each of these lists exists as an exception right now. Not all of them have a corresponding list article; and one does not appear to be necessary. Readers of these musical entertainment categories generally find reading related articles interesting; music is one of the most popular recreational pastimes.
 * The article National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame is a long, established article. It has lots of redlinks so the corresponding category Category:Cowgirl Hall of Fame inductees, also long and established, that only shows articles is quite useful. For example, some one who enjoys the wild west or rodeo would find related articles interesting. It's a narrow interest article, so readers in this area are of the type to find multiple articles interesting.
 * The WWE Hall of Fame has inductees on its main page. They are listed in tables by class (year). It's very convoluted. The main category, Category:WWE Hall of Fame inductees has three subcats to break the inductees into its three types: Category:WWE Hall of Fame Legacy inductees, Category:WWE Hall of Fame team inductees‎, and Category:WWE Warrior Award recipients‎. These sub-categories enable easy navigation. WWE has a massive following on television; readers can't help but be drawn into reading related articles.

I've placed at notice at ? and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. --

Please confine threaded discussion to the discussion section.

Support

 * 1) To allow exceptions for award categories which provide navigation aid to readers who are interested in related articles or where list articles are cluttered with red links or other types of content clutter where the category brings quick access to articles.

Discussion
Then you can present examples of Hall of Fame, etc. I might present some examples of award winner categories: The Beatles are in Category:Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award winners, Category:Brit Award winners, Category:World Music Awards winners, and Category:Best Original Music Score Academy Award winners, which seems to be a useful sub-catgory as Academy Award for Best Original Score as leaves out the nominees. As those categories exist, they must be exceptions to OCAWARD, so try to show what makes them exceptions. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Note: most of these categories, I could not find corresponding list articles. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's excellent. And you are right, the exception should apply to all awards, not just to halls of fame. I looked for some examples for the clarification.
 * Hall of Fame examples:
 * The article Hall of Great Westerners is long and full of red-links. The advantage to the category is concise set of related articles. But it doesn't have a corresponding category. Another hall of fame from the same website National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum has lots of empty links, but they are not all redlinks yet and no category. Any history buff of western history would want to browse related articles.
 * The article National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame is a long established article. It has lots of redlinks so the corresponding category Category:Cowgirl Hall of Fame inductees, also long established, is quite useful. And Women in Red has a link to it as a Redlink. For example, some one who enjoys the wild west or rodeo might look at related articles.
 * The article World Golf Hall of Fame has a corresponding category Category:World Golf Hall of Fame inductees which I helped save in a CfD last June. Arguments are there, but basically the category enables the user to see the entries alphabetically. Readers who watch professional golf on television may want to read related articles.
 * The WWE Hall of Fame has inductees on its main page. They are listed in tables by class (year). It's very convuluted. The main category, Category:WWE Hall of Fame inductees has three subcats to break the inductees into three types. Category:WWE Hall of Fame Legacy inductees, Category:WWE Hall of Fame team inductees‎, and Category:WWE Warrior Award recipients‎. These categories enable easy navigation. WWE has a large following on television and viewers may read related articles.
 * The Hollywood Walk of Fame is a large hall of fame. The inductees are listed in the article List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It's so long that the potential for categories to create sub-categories is very useful. One might want to create sub-category for film genres for example. Entertainment is a huge industry so there is a large number of individuals who might read related articles.
 * Other award types:
 * List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions Just the world champion awards in here are massive. Finding the ones with articles takes a long time. Many cowboys have repeat championships, and finding those together is a challenge. Having a category that shows just the articles removes these challenges. The same is true for the animal inductees. For example, Trevor Brazile is in the article 46 times. Horses Scamper and French Flash Hawk are both in the article five times each. Rodeo fans would be interested in related articles.
 * List of Professional Bull Riders Champions is a long list of four different awards and many inductees do not have articles. Many have more than one mention where a category would benefit this situation. A category would only show the ones with articles. The article would have all instances of awards won. And readers who watch the PBR would be interested in reading related articles.
 * At any rate, this is what I have come up with so far. Let me know what you think and if you want me to search for a few more... dawnleelynn(talk) 18:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have more than enough examples for the background section. When I structure an RfC (example: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility ), I usually add sections Support, Oppose, and Discussion and add a note at the end of Background "Please confine threaded discussion to the discussion section". You can always produce more examples as needed to reinforce points you want to make within the discussion section. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I wasn't going to use all of them. I just thought we'd use the best ones from this selection. If you have no prefererences; however, that's fine too. I will just pick a few. And that's a good idea about using some later as needed. I will look at your example now. Thanks so much, I can't say that too much. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have inserted more of the template into the RFC. I added three examples. I'm planning to notify the guidelines and proposals like you did. I'll also notify WikiProject Awards. I'll try looking around for anymore wikprojects. I think it's pretty close now. Take a look and make any changes you see fit. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard from you since my last ping, so I'm going to post it...crosses fingers...in a few minutes... still time to check it over quick. Or you can wait and make adjustments after it is posted. Feel free to make fixes after it is up and running as well. Thanks again! Silence is also a go-ahead. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 18:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine as long as you make sure to sign the first line (so Legobot will pick it up) as well as the Background and Support sections. I think the ping problem is that I'm in England on UTC+1, so unfortunately on the odd occasions when I have to sleep, you may be still editing --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will follow your RFC as an example, but good to note the signing spots. I did recall that you were in England and wondered about that regarding time differences. But actually, it's been pretty good most of the time. It's been a great experience, and I have already thought of another RFC I'd like to try on my own. A really simple one where I want to add an organization Professional Bull Riders to WP:NRODEO. I actually did that once before w/o an RFC but montanabw and atsme had to write some fancy supporting in there and I had to add a bunch of support because one editor (who happened to see the edit) wanted to see at least a couple other editors for a consensus of more than one editor (me). I successfully added the Bull Riding Hall of Fame and when it was pretty new too. LOL. Ok, here I go, see you on the other side. I'll post a small note when it's done. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have inserted more of the template into the RFC. I added three examples. I'm planning to notify the guidelines and proposals like you did. I'll also notify WikiProject Awards. I'll try looking around for anymore wikprojects. I think it's pretty close now. Take a look and make any changes you see fit. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard from you since my last ping, so I'm going to post it...crosses fingers...in a few minutes... still time to check it over quick. Or you can wait and make adjustments after it is posted. Feel free to make fixes after it is up and running as well. Thanks again! Silence is also a go-ahead. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 18:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine as long as you make sure to sign the first line (so Legobot will pick it up) as well as the Background and Support sections. I think the ping problem is that I'm in England on UTC+1, so unfortunately on the odd occasions when I have to sleep, you may be still editing --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will follow your RFC as an example, but good to note the signing spots. I did recall that you were in England and wondered about that regarding time differences. But actually, it's been pretty good most of the time. It's been a great experience, and I have already thought of another RFC I'd like to try on my own. A really simple one where I want to add an organization Professional Bull Riders to WP:NRODEO. I actually did that once before w/o an RFC but montanabw and atsme had to write some fancy supporting in there and I had to add a bunch of support because one editor (who happened to see the edit) wanted to see at least a couple other editors for a consensus of more than one editor (me). I successfully added the Bull Riding Hall of Fame and when it was pretty new too. LOL. Ok, here I go, see you on the other side. I'll post a small note when it's done. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. It took me a minute to find out what to use in the rfc template... It's policy and prop, I had to find it, you can't see those after they are running awhile. Anyway, I need to go publish notices on wp:cent and wikiproject awards. I also want to go write a support comment on your rfc because I totally agree--I'm an umeployed tech writer so that is down my alley; I've done so many tables in the last 20 years and we have to worry about accessibility when writing help manuals and online help. Thanks so much! <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to sign in the three places where you have  - i.e. remove the code nowiki tags. I can't do that for you because it would add my sig instead of yours. You'll have to do that otherwise the bot won't find the RfC. You may find that it gets removed from CENT because it's too narrow in scope, but if so we can find other places to advertise it. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * RedRose64 fixed it. I must thank her. Wow, got an oppose already! :) <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)