Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse-related topics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Buffyverse-related topics
This is a recreation of the list deleted per Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse articles. I feel like this should be grounds for a speedy.Dave 18:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ; a very comprehensive 'See Also' sub-page for the article Buffyverse and massive improvement to 'List of Buffyverse articles' which had different function. Although the Buffyverse articles can be navigated by category (and this page directs people to search by category if they prefer), the categories are divided into numerous sub-categories' this is the only a-z list of all Buffyverse articles on one page, a massively useful tool for Wikipedians reading about the Buffyverse. -- Paxomen 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just discovered Dave is also trying to delete other items I have produced. For some reason Dave has had grudge against my contributions toward the Buffyverse articles, and has history of deleting/removing/changing whatever he can over past month. -- Paxomen 19:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not simply a recreation of the previous article that was deleted as is being suggested above, or a duplication of the category listing (see my explanation below for more details). -- Paxomen 00:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Paxomen - article duplicates category listing. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thesquire that we have categories for this, but we also allow for Lists and that is really what this is. I do feel the name should be something like List of Buffy-related articles. --Allycat 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that, as you said, is what categories are for. Plus that particular article already achieved consensus for deletion. Dave 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename I agree with the proposal by Allycat above to rename. Whilst the Wikipedia categories are very useful, it is also useful to offer a comprehensive alphabetical list in one place, and Wikipedia seems to accept such lists in addition to categories.


 * The previous list was deleted because some non-Buffyverse fans considered TV show stuff to be 'fancruft', and also because the list was not even almost complete, it is now complete.


 * Should we delete the following lists?


 * List of color topics
 * List of economics topics
 * List of Hinduism-related articles
 * List of Japan-related topics
 * List of journalism articles
 * List of philosophers
 * List of religious topics
 * List of sociology topics


 * They all already have categories, namely; color, economics, Hinduism, Japan, journalism, philosophers, religion, and sociology respectively (see here for more details on this and an example of how lists can be useful where categories aren't always conveniant.


 * Obviously having all articles in alphabetical order on one page can be useful and is encyclopedic. In fact check the following link to see dozens of more lists of topics, which already have categories: 'List of topic lists', but the existence of the lists remains justified.


 * The 'Buffyverse' category is divided into dozens of sub-categories, it divides Buffy and Angel very strictly, and encompasses a few dozen pages, all this can sometimes be extremely unuseful. This article up for deletion needs to be renamed to what seems to be already accepted by Wikipedia. According to that formula, instead of deletion this article should simply be renamed to List of Buffyverse-related topics, and also redefined in its opening sentences. I am willing to make such changes. -- Paxomen 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Paxomen has copied the article in question to List of Buffyverse-related topics, in case anyone's interested in AfD'ing that page as well. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Renamed I don't think I've copied the article to that place, pretty sure I've renamed the whole article to List of Buffyverse-related topics including its case for deletion? That is twice proposed above to bring it into closer line with wikipedia policy. I used the 'move' button, made some edits, and linked the discussion pages. I believe it should bring it into line with other 'structured lists' like those here; 'List of topic lists', unless we believe we should start deleting the majority of those lists? -- Paxomen 01:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This list seriously illustrates that our notability guideline WP:FICT is unfollowed. --Perfecto 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole basis for deletion is categories vs list not notability? Just was looking round Wikipedia and read this which is extremely important for this discussion; Categories, lists, and series boxes. Amongst other things it says Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.. That link also contains 'Disadvantages of categories' and 'Advantages of lists':


 * ''Disadvantages of categories


 * Listings cannot be annotated (e.g. length of a river).
 * They cannot contain invisible links to talk pages, which cause edits to those pages to appear when the user clicks on "related changes". (Thus:    )
 * Red links to not-yet-existing articles cannot be added to categories.
 * Categories are not operational on most mirror sites.
 * Categories can impose a load on the servers. See WP:AUM for perspective.
 * Cannot include alternative names for the same item.
 * Newbies do not understand how to add an item, how to link new categories into existing schemes, or POV concerns.''


 * ''Advantages of lists


 * Lists can be annotated. For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can also list when the championship was won.
 * Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created.
 * List items can be sorted using a variety of methods. An article can be listed several times or in different ways in the same list, or shown both in its major category as well as in several different subcategories, without cluttering the article with crossreferences.
 * Lists can link to items inside other articles.
 * Lists can include invisible links to discussion pages, so that clicking on "related changes" will include those. Format:   .''


 * This List of Buffyverse-related topics has the potential to have functions that categories simply cannot such as notes, invisible text, red links, recent changes, and discussion pages alongside articles. Of course 'lists' also have their disadvantages, and 'categories' also have their advantages, both of which are given on that link, but that's the whole point, both navigation systems can complement each other therefore just because one is in place should never mean the eradication of the other is required. -- Paxomen 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It has that potential, but does it now, or is it likely to ever do so? As far as I can tell, no. Unlike List of Eagle Scouts, which is annotated, this is just a linkdump whose function is already dupicated by applicable categories.  My vote to Delete stands -- Thesquire (talk -
 * That article is years old, yet you give this one less than a week? Here's what that article looked like after its first 2 weeks of editing back in January 2004: List of Eagle Scouts (Jan 2004). -- Paxomen 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * contribs) 08:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The potential expressed only needs to be actualised. Why not give people that chance? See if it's still the same in a month and put it up again if it is, I say. Kusonaga 17:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a list it is usefull. --Allycat (Talk  - Contribs ) 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User's second vote on this AfD -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:G4, redundant to the category, and Listcruft. Stifle 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article Listcruft was created by Stifle -- Paxomen 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, a single convenient list is obviously not redundant to a bunch of smaller categories. Kappa 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is too long. I think the information of a phenomenon as rich as the Buffyverse requires to be classified into more specialized categories, which should have links to the individual articles for each character, episode, species, concepts and analysis topic
 * List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
 * List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics
 * List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels
 * List of Angel episodes
 * List of Angel comics
 * List of Angel novels
 * List of Buffyverse characters
 * List of Scooby Gang Members
 * List of Angel Investigations/Team Angel/Angel's crew Members
 * List of Buffyverse villains
 * List of Buffyverse demons
 * List of Buffyverse vampires
 * List of Buffyverse organizations
 * List of Wolfram & Hart characters (Wolfram & Hart has a pretty big list of related characters: lawyers, clientes, employees, freelance associates)
 * List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel concepts (The Slayer, Watchers, Gender issues, family dynamics, social issues.--Gonzalo84 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true, however those articles already exist (except 'List of Buffyverse concepts', and 'List of Angel Investigations'(Angel's main characters presently are listed in a section on the main Angel page) why not also have the catch-all list available? -- Paxomen 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Paxomen has at least two points that have convinced me.  First, there are plenty of other lists that are much less useful than this one (for example, List_of_Japan-related_topics).  Second, Paxomen says he is willing to address many of the complaints that have been lodged against the page during this vote.  Therefore, to vote to delete this page now is tantamount to purging an incomplete page on the grounds that it isn't very useful when incomplete.  That is true of every page on Wikipedia!  My personal preference would be to use categories and subcategories for this, because I won't myself find this page all that useful, but I don't vote to delete pages that I don't find useful.  Perfecto pointed out that this violates the WP:FICT guidelines; this is true, but I think that the genie was out of the bottle a year ago and a deletionist philosophy will never win at Wikipedia.  I'm a Mergist myself, but we can't have true Mergism until Wikipedia software can force an unadorned link to redirect to a subsection of another page.  But that's another story.... Lawrence King 00:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Paxomen. Much more useful than the categories for someone wanting to look something up about the Buffyverse. --Cooksey 19:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? Please provide an example of a time when you would need to find something about the Buffyverse and need an alphabetized list. If you already know the name of the topic, just go straight there. If you don't, then a list of a whole bunch of related topics in an arbitrary (as opposed to conceptually systematic) can't be useful. Dave 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists complement categories; "categories, lists, and article series boxes.. should not be considered to be in competition with each other" [WP]. List not arbitrary. All topics in one place, red links for unstarted articles, annotation, links to discussion/revision, alternative names for the same item... Also use of lists impose less of a load on the servers than use of categories, which is a very important point because wikipedia is becoming increasingly popular, and the servers are increasingly struggling to cope with being overwhelmed. For list of potential usefulnesses of list, see above,'Disadvantages of categories', and 'Advantages of lists'-- Paxomen 14:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Lawrence King - Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited/Editing: Check out the article, I have added discussion, and history to each topic this kind of thing cannot ever be done with categories. This article can hugely benefit even more by annotation (although i have already semi-annotated many of the articles by using '|' after the link and using a more appropiate entry for the index e.g. 'List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes' is entered into the article as Buffy episodes to make more sense of the indexing system. Annotation, 'discussion' links, and 'revision' links are all impossible within categories, lists are supposed to complement categories and help the wikipedians to navigate topics. -- Paxomen 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have only just begun the process of annotation, and feel that an annotated index with all topics in one place is seeming more useful than even i had imagined, there are hundreds of opportunites for cross-referencing between completely different sub-categories, yet because it's a list, the reader/editor can go straight to associated topics. Just one example is annotation has the potntial to link the Buffyverse actors to their characters, and the Buffyverse characters to those who portrayed them. -- Paxomen 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.