Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Dewey Decimal Classification

The following discussions come from Categories for deletion, where it was listed as unresolved. It was reviewed again (see below) and the consensus was to delete. --Henrygb 01:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Dewey Decimal Classification
My heart skipped a beat when I saw this and all of its subcategories&mdash;this isn't for classifying articles about the Dewey Decimal System, but for classifying everything under it. See, for example, the categorization of Category:Psychology and Category:Philosophy under Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 100 (yes, the subcategories get that specific).

Maybe I'm alone in this sentiment, but this seems an ill-advised project, especially since, best as I can tell, it is the sole work and initiative of only one user. This would logically spread like a virus to every main article on wikipedia (though thus far (from what I've seen) it has only been used to group categories rather than articles themselves). So...we need to have a broader discussion of the pros and cons of having this.

Thoughts? Postdlf 10:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It does sound like a hugely ambitious project. If it succeeded though, I think it would a good one. Do you propose deletion on the grounds that it would too big an "if", or because you don't think it would be a good one, assuming it succeeded? Pcb21| Pete 11:09, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a good one because it would just end up in redundant clutter. Keep in mind that the Dewey Decimal system is supposed to group together like topics...while this sounds like just what we have categories for, that's the point&mdash;that's just what we have categories for, categories that should be titled with clear and concise labels so you immediately understand the classification.  Dewey Decimal is by nature an arbitrary system of designations.  The numbers bear no relationship to the subjects, so seeing "Dewey Decimal 001" or whatever at the bottom of the page would just add esoterica that is utterly useless, unless you're in a library.  If clicking on "Dewey Decimal 001" takes you to related articles, it's obviously a category that could have been better served with, say, words as the category title.  Postdlf 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Multiple catagory trees can overlap (to ideally form a Directed acyclic graph if you really wanted to know). This means you can simply have several systems of catagorisation all at once, one of which might be Dewey Decimal. There's simply no problem :-) If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, if it does work it does work. Other systems of catagorisation will stand or fall independantly of there being Dewey Decimal. Kim Bruning 12:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh look, we already have lots of schemes! See Category schemes. Ok, dewey decimal is just one more. Kim Bruning 12:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an excellent project for librarians who are sitting behind their terminals browsing after hours, -once they get word of it, that is. O:-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a specialty classification, while Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. It's clutter - this information can be given in the Dewey article, just as the subjects taught at the schools of the University of Oxford can be in that article rather than all categorized.  Also, are we going to have a Library of Congress Classification set of categories?  How about the New York Public Library classification, which doesn't seem to be even convered in WP yet ;( ? V V  12:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The Dewey Decimal system is proprietary, as the article states; the public libraries in the US pay fees to the administrator. It would be unwise to use it for classification in an unfunded project. Probably the one who is attempting to categorize in this way needs to be informed that it is grounds for liability. Ancheta Wis 13:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I started playing with it because Dewey Decimal System (which is linked to by the Main Page!) was a mess. A tree of categories (instead of a tree of pages) would be easier to maintain.


 * I was not the first one to try to do it; User:Falcon Kirtaran also tried to use categories before, and other people tried to complete the tree under Dewey Decimal System. Most appear to have given up. I recreated the categories (see User talk:Falcon Kirtaran and Wikipedia talk:Dewey Decimal System) because they couldn't be renamed (and Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 100 is better than Category:Dewey Decimal 100).


 * So, what should be done?


 * Keep with the categories?
 * Keep trying to make a tree under Dewey Decimal System and keep it updated?
 * Or erase all mention of the DDC from the Wikipedia (except for the Dewey Decimal Classification article)?


 * Also notice that the same "possible copyright" notice (which btw was copied from Dewey Decimal System together with the rest of the information in the categories) says that there is no problem if a sufficiently old version of the DDC is used. Since I'm copying the information from Wikipedia itself (Dewey Decimal System and subpages), I suppose there is no problem that didn't already exist (I'm just shuffling things around, not copying from external sources. If there wasn't a copyvio before, there isn't one now).


 * cesarb 13:54, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I just thought of another possibility:


 * Create a List of Categories by Dewey Decimal Classification


 * Should be low-maintenance enough to be kept up to date.


 * cesarb 15:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great solution. Postdlf 19:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, would eliminate the duplication of categories under 'DDC' and be easier to navigate. porge 23:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the list option would be the best way for this to go, from the point of view of reducing clutter, ease of maintenance, and simplicity. PMcM 19:57, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, what should be done now? Is this like VfD which needs 2/3 majority? If so, should we begin a vote on which of the 4 options should be used (notice that only one of them is "keep" for CfD purposes, the other three are "delete")? My vote would be abstain.
 * Also, what should be done about the "possible copyright" issue?
 * cesarb 21:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain, since one of my categories is under the knife and about to be cast from paradise. Ancheta Wis 21:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain, because I have a headache and have no idea what to do. I think its a worthwhile project that will grow into something useful, especially for those people who are used to browsing under the dewey system (lots of them) which is always used in libraries and so is in fact a fairly standard way of organising and referencing information.  Falcon 21:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Library classification systems are not right for Wikipedia. These systems provide mappings from subject areas to codes that can be used to put books in a linear order on library shelves. But in Wikipedia there is no need to put articles in a linear order on a shelf. We can link to them or categorize them in any means we like. So we can use systems that are clearer and easier to use. I know I would rather see and use Category:Mathematics than Category: Dewey Decimal Classification 51. Gdr 22:25, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Dewey Decimal system is not a good match for WP's categories. I think the list suggestion is a good one. older ≠ wiser 00:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I also now understand that the list solution will keep everyone happy, for those keen to provide a Dewey solution do so, without it imposing on others. Doesn't really need a vote. Pcb21| Pete 09:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely support the attempt to keep a Dewey Decimal "window" on WP, whether or not it's a clean alignment. A list or lists would prevent cluttering the category heirarchy with half a dozen numerical classification systems which are similar but not quite the same as each other and the intuitive heirarchy.  But the list would have to be so long that it would have to be split into multiple pages, possibly a small heirarchy.  Which sound like categories to me.  If we were to use the category mechanism to do numerical classification, I think the classification system's name or acronym should be in the names of subcategories, for clarity of navigation.  Numerical systems have the advantage that only one backlink per system is necessary from any given category (hopefully).  I vote to keep for now and try to make the category approach work and see what happens.  No sense in squashing a promising experiment before it can come into its own.  There's a possibility that there will be an obvious problem caused by multiple numerical systems at some point in the future, but maybe not. -- Beland 14:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The list would not be the same as categories. While with categories one is needed for each separate category, with the list a lot of the categories could share the same list (with the end result being 11 list pages against more than 1000 categories for the DDC).
 * I currently think the list idea is the best one (not the least of the reasons is that it would take a lot less work to create), but since I'm too involved in the situation my vote is still abstain.
 * cesarb 19:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We can convert to lists later if this category tree becomes a problem in an obvious way, but I think it will probably be OK.

Let's do the list thing. --Gary D 19:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that classifying articles by Dewey Decimal would be worthwhile (if daunting): it would be a boon to librarians. I see no problem with this base category. I would suggest that it would be very useful to put most categories under the most precise Dewey Decimal number possible (or even under more than one, as applicable). I doubt it would be useful to put most articles directly into a Dewey-decimal-based category.

If this is going to be useful, it will need an associated WikiProject and a team willing to elaborate how it can be made to work, but it's not inherently impossible, and it could be very appropriate. -- Jmabel 07:38, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dewey Decimal Classification

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Voting results:

"Delete" (5): Cesarb, ssd, Neutrality, Grutness, Radiant

"Keep" (1): John Godhe

Consensus is to delete

Looks like this old stupid idea of mine is still alive, albeit in a zombie state (only two other people added some subcategories to it, and that's all). Nobody really followed up with it. While before I had thought it would be a good idea, nowadays I know it's a bad idea and why it's a bad idea. I would like to see it and its subcategories gone (delete). See also the previous discussion. --cesarb 02:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This has sat idle and undeveloped long enough to justify deletion. I've gone through and weeded out all the empty categories.  What is left requires edits to substantial articles and category descriptions (i.e., removing the dewey category) before it can be deleted. --ssd 05:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or convert to list. Neutralitytalk 05:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is already a list version, Dewey Decimal System, which is also covered in dust and spider webs. --cesarb 19:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP This system is used by most libraries. It is historically older than than category:fundamental, hence it should be kept as a viable option for those who prefer to use it. -- John Gohde 22:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a viable option unless someone volunteers to maintain it. On the previous discussion, I believe it became obvious that the best way to do so would be to use a list, not a category. The list still exists, and I'm not voting for its deletion. I'm voting for the deletion of the category. --cesarb 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds like a perfect subject for a list, but an unviable one for a category. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 00:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unviable category. Radiant_* 09:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.