Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 1

Good stuff, but the series box paragraph comes out of nowhere. Without it, the article is factual and informative. With it, it's just confusing! Howsabout something more general? "When to use categories, lists, and series boxes". Include pros and cons of each and guidelines for use. Also, document using templates for series boxes! I'm loving categories, so I'm all for more policy on it.--Sfoskett 21:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perfect. As it stands right now, it's totally in tune with what I've been advocating regarding the use of categories. Postdlf 21:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exception Example
>> - for instance, placing Ohio in both Category:Political divisions of the United States and Category:Ohio. <<

Um...Political divisions of the United States was too crowded, so I moved the states to Category:U.S. states. I couldn't think of a good replacement example off the top of my head...--Beland 07:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The example still works - all the better, because it makes clear that one or two intervening categories does not supercede that rule. Snowspinner 12:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Except that Ohio is now in one and only one category, Category:Ohio. I'm in the process of doing that for all the US states, because Political divisions of the United States was too crowded. -- Beland 04:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, for what it's worth, I think that's a terrible idea, and that Category:Political divisions of the United States is tremendously important, and should be restored. Overcrowding is not a reason to delete information. It's a reason to organize it better, but juts because a category is crowded doesn't mean it should be destroyed. Snowspinner 13:14, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't really think any information has been destroyed; I'm just trying to remove redundant information and also make the information that is presented easier to use. It should be clear that the top-level political divisions of the United States include the 50 states, DC, and the Insular Areas. It's just that instead of listing all 60 or 70 of these, mixed in willy-nilly with general articles on cities, counties, states, territories, etc, the easy-to-classify articles have subcategories. -- Beland 05:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but surely the state articles should be put in US states then.


 * I agree. I seems a pointless extra step in navigating category space to have to go to the state subcategory to access the state article rather than directly from the U.S. states category. To be clear, the state articles should be in both the specific state category and in the U.S. states category and not only in the specific state category. older &ne; wiser 14:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In "Category:U.S. states", you will find the 50 state categories. I have not added individual state articles for several reasons.

The first reason: It would make it harder to find related information about the state. In a list of 100 things where each thing is listed twice, it's easy to get confused about which one you are clicking on. Also, people not familiar with the category system (I assume that would be most readers) will not really know what to expect out of one link vs. the other. We don't know in advance what information the reader is looking for - for example do they want information *related to* Ohio (of which there are currently 16 subcategories and 8 other top-level articles), or the *main article* about Ohio? We don't want people looking for the former to conclude it doesn't exist because they clicked on the second instance of the word Ohio, which happened to bring them to the main article. But bringing people looking for the latter to the category is OK, because they should be able to find the main article there quite easily.

The second reason: Adding the 50 state articles would make it a lot harder to find the growing list of articles about the US states in general (not associated with a particular state). They would clutter up the article list, obscure the boundary between categories and articles, and make the whole page rather overwhelming in size.

The third reason: For ease of maintenance, it's better to have one place where parent categories are defined (the category), rather than two (the article and the category). Otherwise, the two lists will become out of sync with each other. -- Beland 02:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but one of the reasons for the category system is to link to articles - unless Ohio is in Category:US States or Category:Poltiical Divisions in the United States, then it doesn't navigate to those categories - which is counterintuitive in the extreme. And counterintuitive categorization and organization are both bad things. Snowspinner 02:15, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about navigating *to* the Ohio main article from the category structure, then the series of steps you currently take is quite intuitive, I think. (Category:U.S. states -> Category:Ohio -> Ohio) It's always obvious exactly what you want to click on next.  That's also currently true if you are looking for something related to Ohio, but not the main article (especially if you don't know the information you're looking for is not in the main article).  As I said, I think adding the main article directly would make finding *related* information *less* intuitive. -- Beland 02:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've started adding the state articles back to Category:U.S. states. Categories classify&mdash;Ohio is not only the main article of all topics in Category:Ohio, but one of a series of articles on U.S. states, and so is properly classified under both.  Categories also direct hierarchical topic navigation&mdash;it is much better to have the option to either go directly from an article to the series of which it is a member, or the series of which the article is itself a parent.  Articles that define a category should as a general rule (I can't think of any exceptions) be included in both that category and that category's parents.  Postdlf 05:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What example to put in the main article
I notice that the Ohio example has been put back in. If it were a good example, it should say "US states", not "Political divisions of the United States". But currently this example is not true; wouldn't it be better to find a non-disputed one? -- Beland 02:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You could use one of the county articles as an example. &mdash;Mike 05:29, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess my problem is that I think the rule is written incorrectly; there are examples where an article should be in a category and a sub-category, but this should not apply to articles with same-subject categories. -- Beland 01:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Linking to lists
''Generally, linking from lists should be one-way. That is to say, lists should link to articles, but articles should generally not link to lists simply because they are included on the list. There may, of course, be other reasons to link to a list from an article, and this should not be construed as a policy against linking to lists. However, the simple fact that an article is on a list does not itself justify a link to the list.''

Is there any precedent or evidence of consensus for this? It seems to be done on a regular basis and I don't think even the watered down "generally not" terminology is appropriate. anthony (see warning) 11:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There may be instances where it's been done. In my experience, these links are generally removed without objection. This seems to me a matter of scale - see also sections would be unmanagable in the extreme if this was not policy. Snowspinner 12:35, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * So if it's only a problem when there are a lot of these links, why not limit them rather than have a semi-rule against them? anthony (see warning) 16:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, this would work as "A given article may link to X lists," which only sets up a more absurd situation, as the people who have worked on, say, List of Musicians Whose First Name Begins with B and List of New Jersey People fight it out for the spot on Bruce Springsteen. That requires the far dodgier practice of picking which among multiple articles are "better" articles, instead of just maintaining a basic stadard of eligibility. Snowspinner 20:11, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying we shouldn't have a rule for it in the first place, but we should instead use common sense. List of Musicians Whose First Name Begins with B would be a stupid list to link to. List of New Jersey People is a little better, but it's not a very well defined list.  In fact, we already have a link to a list of New Jersey Musicians on the Bruce Springsteen page.  It just happens to be a list in the form of a category.  Why should it be any different if it's a list? anthony (see warning) 01:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea of the rule. Maybe it should be noted that there is almost always at least an indirect link back to the list, e.g. from Ian Thorpe through swimmer to list of swimmers. The link (currently) at the bottom of the page "Ian Thorpe" to list of swimmers is probably not needed. For more specific lists, it's debatable if this to be done in one way (left) or the other (right). -- User:Docu


 * Ideally that is what the categories are for. The reader can choose the related category which give him a list of articles.  If the reader really wants a list of all swimmers, he can do a search for "list of swimmers".  So in short I agree that many "see also" types of links to laundry lists aren't really necessary. &mdash;Mike 22:28, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wilfried Derksen and Joy talked about this topic in the context of having categorization together with linking to lists. See here and here.

Category topics
We need a rule on whether or not categories can be limited to articles on topics meeting a certain criteria, or whether they need only be related to the topic. For instance, can a category called "Pop Singers" include an article on a magazine about pop singers, or should (can) the category be limited to articles about actual pop singers. I've seen both done, but I'm not sure if this is legitimate or not. anthony (see warning) 01:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This has come up a lot on Wikipedia talk:Categorization - there's no real consensus on whether a category X should be "contains examples of X" or the broader "contains articles related to X". -Sean Curtin 01:59, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Policy criticism
What's with a category having to answer yes to "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" A few paragraphs??? Shouldn't the category simply link to the relevant article explaining it's subject? If there is no such article, the category should be explainable in a single sentence (perhaps with another one or two for clarification of what exactly could go in it) - otherwise, to me it sounds far too complex to be a category. ··gracefool |&#9786; 22:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the point is to avoid pointless categorization such as Category:Left-handed alcoholics who committed suicide. While there might be a tiny population genuinely interested in such a categorization, having to consider whether there is something more to say in answer to the questions WHY? WHAT FOR? and WHO CARES? than a single sentence is a huge step toward avoiding pointless overcatgorization. older &ne; wiser 00:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems like an awkward way to say "The category should be 'important' to a reasonable number of people". Note that I'm working on a policy on what "importance" means (basically, it clarifies other polices like What Wikipedia is not). ··gracefool |&#9786; 02:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't such "importance" per se that matters, but whether the category defines a relevant and substantial relationship among the articles to be grouped within it, rather than a trivial fact they happen to share in common. One would hope that such substance and "importance" would correlate, of course.  Postdlf 07:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * True. A "substantial" relationship is an "important" relationship. ··gracefool |&#9786; 04:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Series boxes / navigational templates
Related to comments posed on Templates for deletion.

I am of the opinion that the "Article series boxes" section of this page goes against Wikipedia consensus, as exemplified by the majority of the entries under Navigational templates. Navigational templates are not generally considered linear, nor do should they be. Examples of currently-in-use nonlinear navigational templates include (to select a random twenty-five):


 * Template:ASEAN
 * Template:Blues
 * Template:Calculus
 * Template:Dalarna County
 * Template:Eye
 * Template:French dialects by continent
 * Template:Gastroenterology
 * Template:Hinduism
 * Template:Interstates
 * Template:Japan
 * Template:Kylie
 * Template:Linguistic_typology_topics
 * Template:MicrostatesE
 * Template:NATO
 * Template:Polish Underground State sidebar
 * Template:Quantum computing
 * Template:Rock
 * Template:SSM
 * Template:Texas
 * Template:University of Cambridge
 * Template:Vowels
 * Template:WWIITheatre
 * Template:Yorkshire
 * Template:Zupanije

In other words, the policy as stated appears to directly contradict current and past Wikipedia practice. The sort of linear, chronological-style "series boxes" which the latest writing of the policy advocates could easily be restricted to the format seen in Margaret Thatcher or Saionji Kinmochi -- or might themselves be better suited to a 'list' style, since I can scarcely imagine that one would generally want to read through the entire list of British Prime Ministers at once! However, many related collections of articles which may not have strict orders (such as the quantum computing, calculus, same-sex marriage, or eye boxes above) should nonetheless be directly crosslinked, and the simplest and most efficient way of doing this is by templatizing the set of links thereto. Wikipedia is not paper, and we should not be pretending that it is by artificially limiting a set of articles to a linear reading: we gain nothing at all by doing so. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:28, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Most, if not all of the boxes listed there predate the implementation of categories, and so were created when there was no alternative to ugly, bulky boxes. Now there is an alternative, and the boxes should be converted to categories and removed. Snowspinner 22:20, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Now there is an alternative, and the boxes should be converted to categories and removed. That is your opinion, but there does not seem to be any consensus for this opinion. I, for one, think there are times when a box is more appropriate than a category, or makes a useful addition to a category. Categories are extremely limited at this stage and can't do the things that boxes can do. Take something like Template:Interstates:
 * Category:U.S. Interstate Highway system is the category for this, and its use violates this policy (as "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory").
 * 1) Categories don't handle sorting of numbers properly.
 * 2) There is no way to abbreviate titles within the category pages (thus we list "Interstate X" instead of "X")
 * 3) In general the formatting of categories is extremely limited.
 * 4) Categories can't appear in the articles directly (perhaps not too bad in this situation but still a problem in others).
 * 5) Categories don't contain links to not-yet-created articles, or do so in a separate section.

I don't think this "policy" has consensus support for it. I think the thinktank tag was removed inappropriately (and frankly it was done for suspect reasons, as Snowspinner was arguing with someone over whether or not this was a policy while removing the tag saying it wasn't). anthony (see warning) 14:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are many useful applications of non-linear boxes. Shall non-linear templates like or those for each of the states no be converted to categories and removed. I think not. It took me awhile to warm up to the "clutter" introduced by templates, and I was and still am strongly opposed to the inclusion of templates that have minimal direct relevance to an article or having too many templates stacked up at the bottom or an article--but I have come to find these nav boxes very convenient. Shuffling them all into categories forces additional clicking (and the more likely than not multi-second wait while the servers strain to serve up the page). Like Anthony, I was a little surprised by the removal of the think tank tag and the unilateral declaration of this as policy. I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't really see any issues, but I think this recent discussion clearly shows there is not a broad consensus for every aspect of this proposed policy. older &ne; wiser 15:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks as though the Article series boxes section as currently phrased still contradicts many of the templates listed at Navigational templates and does not reflect actual practice. older &ne; wiser 20:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The practice is what is flawed here. The issue is a general failure to list the hundreds of templates that were rendered obsolete by categories or are souped up categories for vanity purposes for TfD and to then eliminate them all. This is mostly because, I think, nobody wants to go and list 400 templates at once. Snowspinner 20:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, it could be that people find the templates useful and that the "policy" as currently phrased simply does not reflect current practice and does not have consensus approval. older &ne; wiser 20:42, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The page went live after a public discussion and a lack of objection. If massive eyesore templates have somehow gone back into vogue, I missed it. The transition from templates to categories isn't complete yet. I'll be the first to admit it. Snowspinner 20:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

[Back to left margin] I'm not sure what "public discussion" you refer to. It seems there are unanswered objections above, or do those not count? I'm no fan of "massive eyesore templates", but the fact of the matter is that many of the templates on Navigational templates are popular and in wide use, but would be invalid under the policy as currently phrased. older &ne; wiser 21:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many of the templates also predate the categorization system, and are still in widespread use as relics. The category system was implemented to help cut down on series boxes/navboxes/whatever we're calling them today. Now that it's in place, it follows that there needs to be some restrictive policy. Snowspinner 21:06, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many new templates have been added since the category system has been in place; including many which do not follow this proposed guideline. That indicates to me that there is not general consensus for or awareness of the "policy" as currently phrased. older &ne; wiser 21:14, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * My guess is awareness. However, I'm at least willing to accept that it may not be policy. What we really need is for the "Policies and guidelines" category to become guidelines, since it currently conflicts with official policy. Snowspinner 21:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

This thread seems to have died. Is there a consensus conclusion? I favor changing the wording to permit navigational boxes for at least geographical entities (which seem to be extremely common). IMO, categories don't quite cut it for this since categories are for a single type of article. The geography navigational templates often include, for example, cities AND counties facilitating navigation from a city (in category:cities in x) to a county (in category:counties in x). Using categories this requires traversing from an article, to a category, generally "up" to a supercategory (e.g. from category:cities in x to category:x), "down" to a different subcategory, and (whew) finally to the article of interest. I think this sort of geographical navigational box is essentially an extended "see also" section, with different (more attractive and denser) formatting. -- Rick Block 02:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Critique on Wikipedia's use of Categories
Categories don't come close to replacing a well-annotated list to related articles.

Anybody casually familiar with searching on Wikipedia should know this. I only know what categories are, because I am an editor. New visitors to Wikipedia are most likely to be using the default user skin. With the default skin, categories are listed at the very bottom of the web page. Hence, nobody not currently an editor would ever even be likely to see any of the various categories, let alone know what they are for. Once found by a new visitor to Wikipedia, categories are still extremely confusing and time consuming to use.

I am objecting to this specific category guideline.
 * "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory.",

Take Category:Alternative medicine, for example. Every article on this topic can be put into some type of sub-category that would logically fall under this category. Yet, I see a whole bunch of articles listed in this major category when few if any articles should be listed per this category guideline.

Body work (alternative medicine) is a case in point. Note how alternative medicine is actually included in the title of this article. Yet, you wont find Body work (alternative medicine) in Category:Alternative medicine thanks to the editing efforts of editors following this Wikipedian category guideline.

Homeopathy is another case in point which has its own Category:Homeopathy. There are a number of articles in this category. But, not one of them refers to category:Alternative medicine. The only place category:Alternative medicine is found is within its sub-category Category:Homeopathy. My question is this. Why would a new visitor to Wikipedia reading homeopathy interested in finding other articles on alternative medicine ever click on Category:Homeopathy when they are already in the article on homeopathy? This assumes of course that they could find the link on the very bottom of the page that they are supposed to click on.

As an editor, I am familar with categories. There is a certain amount of logic to them. However, I am concerned only with the likely behavior of a new vistor to Wikipedia who is using the default user skin. Suppose that visitor is trying to find articles on alternative medicine. That new visitor is not likely to find Category:Alternative medicine. And if they manage to find it, they wont find Body work (alternative medicine) on the list, thanks to this category guideline.

Visitors visit Wikipedia in order to obtain knowledge, but using the categories feature assumes that these visitors already have the knowledge that they are searching for.

Now image trying to do something really imagative with categories like creating a category in order to replace a well-annotated list to related articles. It would never work because of this guideline. Categories will therefore NEVER replace the value of a well-annotated list to related articles. -- John Gohde 07:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you considered fixing the categorization? I suspect if you spent half the time you're spending railing against the horrors of your infoboxes being deleted on redoing the CAM categorization, the outcome would be more to your liking. Snowspinner 13:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * At least visitors will be able to find a few articles. Once it is fixed, they wont be able to find anything with categories. -- John Gohde 20:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with categories
In addition, categories do not work, unlike lists to related articles, during server problems. Categories are a real time feature that obviously puts a tremendous burden on Wikipedia's limited computer resources. -- John Gohde 05:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture, categories are generally totally botched on all mirror copies of Wikipedia. And the reason is totally obvious. Categories are not a file. The implication is clear. Categories do not exist on mirror copies of Wikipedia, whereas commonsense systems that are based on Lists are totally functional. -- John Gohde 01:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Paradox of Sub-Categorization
So, any and all editors are supposed to assign CAM articles at their own whim to a sub-category, without any advanced planning, guidance, or control from a Wikiproject? The science people like to say that all of alternative medicine is quackery, yet they seem to be failing to put articles in category:Quackery rather than in category:alternative medicine.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Classification Systems has documented that there are at least seven different ways to classify CAM articles.

The WikiProject's infoboxes currently classifies branches of medicine four different ways. That is NOT 4 categories. That is four parallel ways of classifying each of which requires more than one category.

To implement categorization by Classification by Standard of Knowledge and Quality of the Evidence alone requires 5 different categories: Real Science, Protoscience, Pseudoscience, Enlightenment, and the Supernatural. In addition to these 5 categories, two other categories have already been implemented: category:Quackery and category:Fraud.

Kindly, explain the difference between the category:Pseudoscience, category:Quackery and category:Fraud categories? What if someone decides to implement category:Health fraud?

The implications of this is that most branches of alternative medicine articles can be classified 5 different ways and could have up to 5 sub alternative medicine categories alone.

Currently, there are already 11 subcategories in category:alternative medicine. Should we add one on CAM stubs? Medicine already has Category:Medicine stubs. As time goes by, without guidance and more guidelines to follow the number of these subcategories in category:alternative medicine will get a lot bigger.

Now, exactly how does the use of categories enable visitors to find articles on alternative medicine? How do all these sub-categories help visitors find articles?

Time spent categorizing articles is a bottomless pit. Putting infoboxes in articles takes time, but at least the number of articles is finite. The way it is now, you could categorize articles for ever. And, somebody is sure to come along at a later point in time to undo what you have spent time doing.

This does not motivate me to spend any more of my limited time categorizing. -- John Gohde 11:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

 * Categorization policy is a bold proposal to make WP categorization more consistent and stable.

Commenting out speculation on database operation
Regarding the commenting out of speculation on database operation, I would like the justification for doing so posted here within a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, I am likely to re-add them since they are anything but speculation to me. -- John Gohde 03:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that you were a developer in any way qualified to make comments on Wikipedia's database load. Snowspinner 03:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Does that mean I will be paid for my services, when I am supported in my positions? -- John Gohde 04:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Developers are volunteers. Snowspinner 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

There happens to be more than one project page on this subject being developed.
 * Categorization policy
 * The major technical problem with categories compared to lists is that categories are horrendously inefficient, requiring hundreds or thousands of times the resources per page view. This extreme cost disparity arises because the contents of category pages isn't cached. Instead, it's generated anew, using a new datbase query and page build with every page view. A normal list page is simply loaded from the Squid cache server closest to the viewer, a very inexpensive operation. At present, 6 or so Squid cache servers handle about 80% of all hits to the sites, with some 40 other machines needed to handle the rest." -- John Gohde 04:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm not sure what to ask - how this is a violation of NPOV, or whether NPOV even applies to guidelines. Snowspinner 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV violation noted - This guideline is pushing for all lists and ASBs to be deleted!
This guideline starts off by stating that Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances.

Then it ends up stating: Frequently redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the relevant category; with strong emphasis on both Frequently and significantly. Let me be perfertly clear here. The word Frequently must go! The word significantly must go!

Attempts to neutralize the last section have been rebuffed with comments that defining redundancy is redundant, qualifications should not be given, and that it is all self-evident. Sorry, but there is nothing self-evident about a written guideline that purports to state that lists are appropriate in different circumstances, yet concludes that is never possible since lists are automatically frequently redundant with categories. That lists must past an extra unspecified burden of being significantly better.

Therefore, I am proposing that both redundancy be defined, how both lists and ASB can demonstrated that they can duplicate categories and yet not be redundant with categories be explicitly explained and expanded upon. This is the entire objective of this guideline and thus must be explicitly pointed out or operationally defined in a separate section. -- John Gohde 17:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have trouble seeing this as NPOV, since this isn't an article. Nor do I think nailing down the nature of redundancy is fruitful - if anything, it will lead to people deleting lists and ASBs because they've found new ways of avoiding redundancy. Snowspinner 18:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is a guideline. NPOV does not apply. If you have an objection, you probably should voice it in another fashion. Either that, or you show me a totally neutral guideline that is actually useful! Next, I agree with the guideline: Lists are frequently overkill in an article, but there are times when they could be useful. A properly written article uses the TOC as a list of facts for the topic, and if another list is required, then one is warranted. The word 'frequently' does not mean all lists should be eliminated. Just the opposite, it states that there are exceptions to the rule. Koi 18:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Frequently redundant with categories?
Let us just suppose that Lists are indeed frequently redundant with categories. So, what? That state of being true is simply not a disadvantage of using a list. Thus I will delete this irroneaous listing since it is not a disadvantage any more than being born black is a disadvantage. Is not being black redundant with being white? I don't see any disadvantage, here. Either explain, or I will delete. -- John Gohde 22:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Articles that do not do anything that is not already covered by other articles are generally redirected, merged, and/or deleted. If an article is a simple list of topics that duplicates the category system, the article has no particular reason for existence. Snowspinner 22:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to have this project page all backwards. If the List pre-existed the category then the category is duplicating the list. Ergo the category is redundant with the list. And, the category should go.


 * I repeat the simple question. How is that state of being a disadvantage of being the pre-existing list? -- John Gohde 22:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense - the only reason the list would predate the category is that the category wasn't technically possible until about a year ago. Categories were introduced to provide functions that the lists couldn't. That is to say, they were an upgrade to lists. The list is inferior for the same reason that my old 286 is inferior to my current computer. Snowspinner 22:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not policy?
What other project pages are redundant with this? (I thought you meant project in the sense of a wikiproject - my bad. Perhaps had you used a talk page to explain in more detail than the edit summary allows you?) I have trouble with this, as this was one of the earlier guidelines written following the creation of categories, and it's long been used as the operating structure for Templates for Deletion, so I really don't think "not policy" covers it. Snowspinner 22:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Categories were created to offer functionality that lists lacked?
Just what might this functionality be? I count 6 advantages of a list, plus 1 more pending database operation confirmation to only 3 advantages of categories. Considering the inconvenience that they present to users of Wikipedia, I see no added functionality. What I see is an arbitrary consensus to use categories, even when lists have been historically an acceptable and proven approach. -- John Gohde 22:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I've got to assume that when developers coded categories last year, they weren't doing it for their health. Snowspinner 23:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Being different for the sake of being different, is not always progress. -- John Gohde 23:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The implementation of the new feature certainly seemed to carry a mandate to use it. Snowspinner 23:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The red self-destruct bottom should only be use to self-destruct. -- John Gohde 23:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All categories are linked together, created a web of knowledge
I am challenging the assertion that All categories are linked together, created a web of knowledge is an adantage of categories. List of glossaries was created in 2002. It effectively creates a web of knowledge that potentially covers the entire scope of Wikipedia. All that is needed is a little work, to make sure that all areas are covered. We might need to add a glossary of perverse knowledge. -- John Gohde 23:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge" would be better?


 * Sounds good. - Pioneer-12 23:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Web of Knowledge should be re-directed to List of glossaries? Perhaps, whoever said that lists are not articles was wrong. Sounds like an article with great potential to me. -- John Gohde 23:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Synergy
Speaking of Synergy, how are categories, lists, and ASBs supposed to exist together on Wikipedia without competing with each other? Shouldn't there be an entire section on this in this guideline in order to avoid unnecessary battles down the line? -- John Gohde 00:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, with all the arguing going on, a seperate section might be a good idea. This isn't supposed to be about "categories are better then lists" or "lists are better then categories". Both are necessary.


 * Categories, lists, and ASBs are *TOOLS*. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job. That, I think, is what this article is supposed to be about. - Pioneer-12 00:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Precisely! Right now this guideline is redundant.  There is a separate project page each for categories, lists, and ASBs.  So, why do we  need this redundant guideline if you are not going to explain precisely how editors are supposed to pick and choose between each of these tools? -- John Gohde 02:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarity needed in writing
Try as I might, I can't see:


 * Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category.

as being clearer or in any way preferable to


 * Lists are often redundant with categories.

I shall assume John thinks of this as a good change. Why is it a good change? - David Gerard 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ??? It is very simple really!


 * disadvantage: "an unfavorable or inferior condition or circumstance"


 * The unfavorable circumstance of lists is that they are subject to being mindlessly deleted by hopelessly confused and biased editors who have not a clue as to what they are doing as a natural biproduct of being on Wikipedia 8 plus hours a day, seven days a weeks, for years on end. -- John Gohde 01:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category." That is not a "disadvantage"; That is a "usage note". If it is to stay in the article, it needs to be moved to the appropriate section. - Pioneer-12 02:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking of mental vomit! "Not auto-linked, as categories are" is shown as a disadvantage. Sorry, but being white rather than red in not a disadvantage any more than a list is not like a category. Of course they are not.  Lists are better than categories. So, I would say that "Not auto-linked, as categories are" should be shown as an advantage. Of course, we are talking about mental vomit. -- John Gohde 00:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)