Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24[edit]

Category:Articles that need to be wikified[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As noted in the TfD regarding {{Wikify}}, the term "Wikify" is ambiguous and unclear. It is currently used to refer to both "needs more links" and "needs general formatting/links improvement". Therefore, the category in question (and all subcategories) should be renamed to match Category:Articles with too many wikilinks. Category:Dead-end pages should be a subcategory of this category, and only of this category. Meanwhile, Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (currently under discussion here) should be renamed as Category:Articles that need to be wikified, unless a better, more descriptive name can be established. In other words, we are clarifying the meaning of the word "wikify" so that it means "needs general formatting/links improvement" rather than "needs more links". This clarification is compatible with the decision made in the TfD for {{Wikify}} and should be made while the backlog is cleared. Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information can be found via the category tree of the supercategory (Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify). Note that this discussion should focus on the category in question; the meaning of "wikify" has already been determined in the aforementioned TfD for {{Wikify}}. Thanks. Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how your proposal would clarify the meaning of "wikify"; if I've understood it, it would mean that all articles tagged with {{wikify}} would now be in a category called Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. Have I got that right?
As an aside, I do support the creation of Category:Articles with too few wikilinks, which could then be populated by the currently-defunct Template:Internal links (I've proposed its re-creation here). I also agree that Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify should be renamed Category:Articles that need to be wikified, but only when the backlog is cleared and Category:Articles that need to be wikified is empty. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The clarification comes from an assumption: that the majority of pages in Category:Articles that need to be wikified are tagged because they have too few wikilinks. This is not an irrational assumption; AWB tags articles with {{Wikify}} "if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size". A quick survey of the category reveals that a vast majority of the articles were tagged automatically, rather than manually. If the assumption is valid, then we are clearing things up with this renaming because "Category:Articles with too few wikilinks" is much more explanatory than "Category:Articles that need to be wikified". Guoguo12 (Talk)  15:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess that makes sense. I'm hopeful that we'll have cleared the backlog in a month or two, though, so I don't think this will make much difference in the long run. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19,000 articles? I'm thinking at least six months. Clearing backlogs requires group effort, and even the most successful WikiProject Wikify drive resulted in less than 3,000 articles removed from the backlog. The most recent drive resulted in less than 500 articles being removed from the backlog. Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say we'll have emptied the category, not cleared the backlog. Within a month or two, we'll hopefully have transferred the backlog into Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify by replacing all the {{wikify}} tags with more specific cleanup templates. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. One to two months makes a lot more sense in that case. Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, what this comes down to is whether or not replacing all 20,000 {{Wikify}} tags is worth the trouble or not. If it is, then this CfD should be withdrawn, {{Internal links}} should be recreated, and it should place articles into Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. If it's not worth the trouble to replace all {{Wikify}} tags, I think the proposed renaming should take place. (But in that case, why not just redirect {{Wikify}} to {{Internal links}}?) Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If an overwhelming majority of {{Wikify}} tags actually mean {{Internal links}}, then we could just redirect the template, and change the category linked within the target template. However, if a notable minority actually mean different things e.g. {{Copy edit}} or {{Cleanup}}, then I don't think we should change the template; just create the new category, populate it by editing the {{Dead end}} template (with or without using {{Internal links}} too), and start replacing the Wikify template with more specific ones. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working through a random sample of 100 articles tagged with {{wikify}}, I found that 92 of them could have been tagged with {{dead end}} or {{internal links}} instead. Is that an overwhelming majority? I don't know (and obviously we need a larger sample size, so I'll keep going for now), but I am coming around to the idea of redirecting {{wikify}} to {{internal links}}. If we assume that my 100 articles are representative of the entire category, redirecting the template would leave 8% (about 1,500) of the 19,000 incorrectly tagged, which is a lot, but that state of affairs wouldn't last for long, as it would be obvious which articles the template doesn't apply to. One of the problems with the wikify tag is that people are never sure when they can remove it, whereas {{internal links}} is (or will be) unambiguous. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, turning Template:Wikify into a redirect would contradict the decision reached at the TfD, but we could have a bot replace every {{wikify}} tag with {{internal links}} instead. And that would be even better, because then it could leave a clear edit summary that might mitigate any potential confusion. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it would not be appropriate to have a bot do the replacement on 2 grounds: (i) 8% is a significant minority, and (ii) that action would be worse than redirecting {{wikify}}. At least redirecting would still gives a chance to see what pages {{wikify}} is transcluded onto, and to check each one re what replacement template(s) is/are required. But I don't see the hurry anyway. Why not just set up the new category, and change the category encoded in {{dead end}} right now? I think there has been enough approval already to go ahead with those actions. The nominated category can be left and {{wikify}} can be replaced manually over the coming months. – Fayenatic London 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's worth it to manually replace each individual {{Wikify}} tag? It took DoctorKubla about one minute to manually replace one tag. That's 19,000 minutes we're talking about, or three hundred hours of work in total. Why not redirect {{Wikify}} to {{Internal links}}, then have users use AWB to find articles with transclusions of {{Wikify}} to find and fix the 8% of articles that shouldn't have {{Internal links}}? That makes a lot more sense (I think). Guoguo12 (Talk)  16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If {{Wikify}} is not replaced, how would anyone know that it has been checked and found OK as only meaning "Internal links" rather than "Cleanup"? – Fayenatic London 19:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. In that case, I concur; we should proceed as you and DoctorKubla said. This discussion, given the consensus, shall be considered withdrawn, and may be closed. All {{Wikify}} tags shall be replaced with more specific tags. Though not necessarily based on this discussion alone, {{Internal links}} shall be recreated and shall place articles into Category:Articles with too few wikilinks (to be created). Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asbestos-containing Product Manufacturers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Needs speedy renaming per WP:Capitalization. However, I nominated it here for broader discussion if the existence of this category is justified as there is no clear cut which companies should be included and the category itself seems some way incriminating. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless we are going to start categorising manufacturers by the full list of their raw ingredients. I am trying to assume good faith, but this does look rather like an attempt to label companies as "makers of nasty things". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. No need to go into this mess with categories. Vegaswikian (talk)
  • Delete per nom. Surely the quality of coverage for this is not good. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per BHG. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify (and then let AfD decide its merits). Categorisation is not appropriate, but a list could contain encyclopedic info. Asbestosis, Asbestos and Asbestos and the law contain relevant info to support a list. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Holby[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've converted WP:WikiProject Holby into a task force. There must be a special guideline about naming task forces, but I don't know which one. George Ho (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures in India in Bhubaneswar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (C1). The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar category exist. Category:Buildings and structures in Bhubaneswar Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pirate Party India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: plundered. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Who knows what the future holds for this party but for now it's a recently created marginal party with, as far as I can tell, no leader, no member elected to any position and no detailed program. This means that we have no articles relating to this party (beyond the main article) and don't expect any in the very near future so there's no need for a category. Pichpich (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Undefeated mixed martial artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This might work as a list but it's a flawed basis for a category. For one thing, it doesn't distinguish between a fighter with a record of 1-0 (who cares?) and a fighter with a record of 15-0 (very impressive). There are also huge differences between the quality of fighters in different promotions and a 3-0 record in the Ultimate Fighting Championship says more about a fighter than a 10-0 record in a local promotion. Case in point, Donald Brashear is officially (correct me if I'm wrong) 1-0 in MMA and is therefore undefeated although everyone agrees he would get destroyed by any fighter in the UFC. In fact, 99% of UFC fans would ask "Donald who?" In a list, details like that can be included but as a category, this is a bad idea. Pichpich (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning one Olympic gold medal is a highly notable achievement for any sportsperson, placing them at the pinnacle of their sport. It is definitely a defining characteristic, and leads to their name being routinely prefixed with "Olympic gold medalist". However, being undefeated in a single competition is usually a transient characteristic, and attempts to constrain the category by a numerical threshold fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
The college football cat is a little trivia-ish but it's not transient since it's categorizing complete seasons rather than teams. The fact that a team had a perfect season at some point in its history is not a defining characteristic of a team. However, "being perfect" is one of the most notable characteristics of a given season. Pichpich (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the racehorses one is different (retired without being beaten) as is the 'seasons' one. This does seem to be a 'currently unbeaten' category, which is not workable. Oculi (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in general most categories are supposed to be of a nature that once they apply they always apply. Living people is an exception for well defined reasons, but being undefeated in fights is not one. The problem that someone can qualify for this with a 1-0 record also shows that it is not neccesarily very meaningful. I am not convinced the racehorse category is justified, but that would be a seperate discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's also a precedence in deleting these types of cats.--Lenticel (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dune on film and television[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Dune universe media. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Generally we split film categories and television categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_24&oldid=1138397400"