Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 25



April 25

 * 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 14:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject C
Contains only one link, so that should be in the parent category. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 25, 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.


 * 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 14:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check
Contains only one article, and a link to a subcat already referenced in that article. Move to parent category, imho. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 25, 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.


 * 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines_for_WikiProjects
Ditto but only two links. This seems too narrow for a category, maybe a subsection in 'deletion policy' is in order. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I created this category, I hoped that articles like Deletion policy would link to it rather than having their own lists of links to notability guidelines.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:40, 2 May 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.


 * 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 14:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Articles with big category hits
What in the world does this even mean? -- Curps 05:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This was on the category talk page: "This page is really worth keeping. If any Wikipedian can find any articles with 10 or more categories, add this category to them. This category can break down other complex categories." It makes even less sense to me now that I've read that.  Delete.  Postdlf 05:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJAODN, it's really funny if you think about it. Also note the bolded "keep" in the talk page, probably in anticipation of CfD listing. --Aram&#1379;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1377;&#1398;&#1379;a|  06:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the 'too many template boxes' template box. Which was also BJAODNed. Delete. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 12:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. So .. an article has (apparently) too many categories, so we add another category on?  Interesting .. --Azkar 16:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The category version of . BJAODN. --cesarb 01:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN in the spirit of .Thryduulf 16:28, 26 Apr 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.


 * 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 16:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Argyreia
No potential for growth, plant genus that has only one species: Argyreia nervosa, which was moved to the Convolvulaceae family category instead. --Aram&#1379;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1377;&#1398;&#1379;a|  04:53, 25 Apr 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.


 * 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 16:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Languages of Wikipedia Projects

 * This category is for English language articles on other languages that have their own Wikipedia projects. For example the French language has the French Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/).

This just seems to convoluted to be useful. People can already get a list of the languages that Wikipedia is available in, and they can already get a list of articles on particular languages. It is also empty at the moment. -- Beland 01:46, 25 Apr 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.


 * 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 17:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Controversial topics
Voting results:

"Delete" (6): Postdlf, cesarb, Deco, Radiant, Kbdank71, Askar

"Keep" (2): Adraeus, SchmuckyTheCat

Consensus is to delete

POV and just asking for trouble. Judging from the category description, a more apt title might be "articles that wikipedians most tend to fight over," which may or may not relate to whether the subject matter is in fact controversial, just whether or not there is agreement on how to describe it. I can't see how this can function to do anything but disparage a topic as of dubious veracity or morality and help to further edit wars by carving in stone the notion that no consensus will be reached in disagreements. Delete. Postdlf 00:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would work better as a list. We already have a list. Delete. --cesarb 00:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that if it exists, it should be a list, to facilitate better organization. However, that list should list topics that are controversial in the larger cultural context, not just the subject of edit wars. Deco 01:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maintain. I created the category because the category system works more effectively and efficiently than the list of controversial issues by increasing usability and productivity. If this category is deleted for the reasons cited by Postdlf, then the existing list should also be removed.
 * Concerning Postdlf's reasons for deletion:
 * The category itself is not POV. Entries that do not match the provided criteria should be removed from the category.
 * His last comment about disparaging a topic as of "dubious veracity or morality" to "help further edit wars" by "carving in stone that no consensus will be reached in disagreements" over controversial articles is patently ridiculous and overdramatic. The can be added to and removed from an article with ease just as any text. The category does not "disparage" topics, claim its topics untrustworthy, further edit wars, or declare its topics agreement-impaired. Again, those so-called reasons are ridiculous. The category simply provides an easy and organized method of categorizing topics that match the provided criteria while providing reason to make defunct the existing primitive list of controversial issues.
 * The cited reasons for deletion sound like mere meaningless deletionist rhetoric. Adraeus 08:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Your criteria, as given in the category description page, I presume, is that an article should be included if it satisfies some judgment that Wikipedians have failed to acheive consensus in its writing, yet the category title completely fails to reflect this. What about the category "controversial topics" even suggests that it is referring to the article and its edit history rather than what the article is about?
 * 2) My "last comment" was actually two points I made that you had somehow combined into one.
 * a) Labelling an article as a "controversial topic" implies something about the subject matter itself, in the manner that use of the terms "controversial film" or "controversial leader" strongly suggests that there is serious opposition to them&mdash;someone really does not approve of or trust it/them. This is far removed from mere academic disagreement, which may be focused more on understanding the topic rather than an evaluative judgment of the topic's worth.  Labelling something "controversial" in this manner is unavoidably negative.  What you believe the criteria to state about the article is far removed from what the category title itself says, when it appears on the face of the article without annotations.
 * b) Labelling an article as "controversial" suggests that consensus cannot be reached because of the inherent nature of the subject, and in this way may exacerbate edit warring. Remember that categories classify the subjects of articles in a matter-of-fact manner.  That they may be removed is no argument for ignoring their flaws when they are applied.
 * Finally, stop taking this so personally and tone down your own hyperbolic rhetoric. Postdlf 08:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. The criteria provided on the category's page is duplicated from the list of controversial issues' criteria description.
 * 2a. The category description explicitly defines "controversial topic" as an "article that is either being constantly edited in a circular manner, provoking edit wars, or is subject to Wikipedian dispute". That is what "controversial topic" means with respect to the category. Initially, I thought about adding "controversy" (using your definition) as a criterion for addition and/or deletion of pages within the category; however, there exists no objective criteria for what constitutes "controversy".
 * 2b. A category is not a label. Categorizing an article as a "controversial topic" neither describes (or implies) why the topic is controversial &mdash; remember, we're using the definition of "controversial topic" as explicitly provided in the category's description &mdash; nor does categorizing an article as a "controversial topic" suggest "that consensus cannot be reached". The criteria for an article to be considered a "controversial topic" is dynamic and allows for change.
 * If deletionists, like yourself, use your subjective, limited, and incorrect understanding of categorization and this category, then clearly a possible description of this category could match your complaint; however, your description of the problem is ridiculous because your complaint is based on a false notion of what constitutes a "controversial topic", which is explicitly defined on the category's page.
 * By the way, for me to behave impersonally would require that you had previously discussed this matter with me instead of satiating your thirst for destruction by inconsiderately requesting the category's deletion. Adraeus 11:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was too busy devouring raw baby flesh to give you prior notice. It's that thirst for destruction that distracted me from being aware of your personal ownership of this category.  Postdlf 18:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, inherently POV. We already have templates for this matter. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Inherently POV? Prove it. Categories are managed by editors (plural); thus, categories are inherently NPOV because a Point-Of-View necessitates a single point from which to perceive. Adraeus 11:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Kbdank71 12:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, it's a self reference.  Second, I don't really see any purpose to it.  If we're going to have a self referencing category, it should at least have some reason for existing.  So what if an article is controvercial, or the subject of edit wars, etc?  What is putting it in a category going to accomplish?  We already have RFCs and peer review processes to address these sorts of issues.  --Azkar 16:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep Making lists and keeping them up to date is cumbersome. Adding a category to a template makes finding articles with a specific template very easy to find. There is nothing POV about this, anymoreso than the template itself, which editors of the articles put on and take off, not the creator of the category. SchmuckyTheCat 20:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't from a template. We already have neutrality and disputed templates, which are obviously referring to the articles as written in a way that "controversial topics" does not.  Not all of the articles included in that category even have those templates applied at present, btw.  Postdlf 20:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Notice that Postdlf's arguments are based purely on what he personally thinks "controversial topics" implies. His arguments can be properly described as subjective, irrational, and baseless. Maybe I should issue a User For Deletion request since the name "Postdlf" is offensive to me... Adraeus 00:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Great way to continue the dialogue. So applying the classification "controversial topics" to an article has no effect upon the subject?  No connotation?  How do those two words communicate the category criteria you insist upon?  It's fair to disagree that my interpretation is the likely one, but you have done nothing to even consider how the average visitor to Wikipedia would view such a category on an article, particularly one who has not read the description page and is unfamiliar with how categories are created and applied.  See the votes and comments on this recent CfD discussion for another example of what I'm talking about, if you are still unclear on what the issue is.  Postdlf 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So we should hold the hands of ignorance and prejudice? I don't think so. If readers can't distinguish facts from inferences, they shouldn't even be here. As experienced Wikipedians know, what's written is far more important than what's meant (or thought to mean). See the definition of controversial since apparently you think it means something else. I think you should try to VfD List of controversial issues using the same subjective arguments. You will fail miserably. Adraeus 08:03, 29 Apr 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.