Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 7

2629:. I will note that at least one of those in favor of keeping is not opposed to listification. There are simply too many issues with verifiability for these entries. For the category to exist, editors would need to find sources that show why everyone who is included is a member, that it is clear from the article that they should be included in this category and that their membership is in fact defining for them. I see that as a nightmare to make happen and maintain. In addition, I suspect that a good number of those in the category would not be able to qualify for inclusion in the category. So the best solution to preserve the information without dropping anyone is to listify. A listification preserves the information that was in the category so when this happens, nothing is lost except some possible category clutter in several articles. That is not a bad change and for many it would be an improvement. 1765:

I think a list would be more useful for this topic than a category. Designation as a Preserve America Community requires that a place (which could be a city, county, neighborhood, Indian reservation, etc.) have undertaken a program to promote historic/cultural preservation and heritage tourism/education, so a Knowledge list of Preserve America Communities (with links to their Knowledge articles) would have informational value for people interested in the topic of heritage promotion (either as heritage tourists or as heritage promoters). (That subject matter is loosely related to the subject matter of the

2141:

category would work if the biography of every member of the Detection Club specifically mentioned that person's membership and sourced it, but that would be cumbersome as membership in this club isn't really all that relevant to most of its members' careers. So in this case, having a list makes more sense than having a category. (A secondary point: this category is also inconvenient because its main article doesn't even strictly belong in the category: the Detection Club is not itself a member of the Detection Club.) —

451:(as creator) I'm not sure what I was thinking of doing it this way, but there is a case for it, especially for earlier periods (and perhaps periods in the future) when significant numbers of people fought for countries not their own, not least the Swiss, the world's most famous mercenaries. Does the adjective denote the country they came from, or the one they fought for, or either? We should have categories like 481:- I agree with Charlotte that the category structure should be "Military personnel of Foo". Given the mania for characterizing people based on national descent, "Fooian military personnel" lends itself easily to having people miscategorized on that basis. The category name should be clear that it refers to the country for which the person fought, not the country of origin of the fighter. 3420:

not really any policy or guidance that applies here, it's just one of those things you either like or you don't like. I appreciate the arguments for standardising, but they don't carry any more weight than those for not standardising in this instance. It's just personal preference. Do we want a uniform encyclopedia or one that allows the odd quirk?

3265: 1772:

President, but the Preserve America signs and other vestiges of designation that exist in these communities are likely to survive for a long time. If list size became a problem, the handful of states (such as Kentucky and Texas) with large numbers of Preserve America Communities could be split out. --

1764:

I am the one who commented that this content would be more appropriate as a list, but until this proposed deletion (which I assume was occasioned by my recently adding a bunch of articles to the category), no one has responded to that proposal. (I do not know what the category's creator had in mind.)

3419:

No. I mean "I think the inconsistency adds to the article and the category." I don't see a reason to delete since we don't have to standardise, and I like the quirkiness. I don't share your opinion that the same spelling should be used for the article and the category, is all it amounts to. There's

2303:

that information be presented in more than one grouping format? Because I know I've explained it to you more than a dozen times and other editors have explained it as well, but somehow it just doesn't seem to be making it through to you. I can only think that there is some critical mass threshold of

2254:

be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging

1379:

I believe I have already, but I suppose I'll take that as an additional request for clarification. Essentially both cats are mostly categorising fictional universes (with a few articles concerning fictional universes as well). I thought that would be self-evident if someone actually took a moment to

1413:

to change the link in the text in the category, whatever happens). While the name seems fine to me just so we don't come back to this in 6 months time: Is it worth making the distinction that these are fictional? As in "fictional parallel universe (comics)"? Now we don't actually have any real ones

3728:

Okay, I'll freely admit that I'm fairly inexperienced with sock tagging, so it looks like the category was more than is needed. The fair thing to do is delete the category, so I went ahead and removed the tag from the anon, and deleted the category as G7. Thanks to everyone for commenting, and I

2587:

I believe there is a quantifiable difference between the organizations being captured in that cat and the Detection Club. Look at the kind of organizations in the category. The various arms of the IRA. Al-Queda (in the criminal orgs subcat). The only one that's really comparable that I'm seeing is

2140:

Not at all. Most categorization is either uncontroversial or is based on information independently mentioned and sourced in the text. Thus, people only get included in the various "LGBT whatever" categories if their sexual orientation is already discussed and sourced in the text. In this case, the

503:

you can read before your head hurts. I'd rather not speak of Burkinabés, Monégasques, Damascenes, or Michiganders if I can help it, nor use nouns as adjectives just because "Dominican" and "Congolese" are ambiguous. For this reason I will support "X Y" wherever possible. Just curious, what do you

2496:

Exactly - any article in this category has to explicitly mention the fact and source it. But membership in this group is not a significant event in most of the author's lives, and most articles won't benefit from having a sentence along the lines of "Oh yeah, s/he was in the Detection Club, too"

1771:

Although new communities might be added to Preserve America in the future, the current list membership is likely to be fairly stable, as there is no requirement for designated communities to requalify. Since this is a Bush Administration initiative, the program might evaporate under the next

1066:

was a scientist who made some mistakes. I don't see any of these article, other than the parent, that have any relevance to the subject to merit a category. I will be willing to reconsider if there is some evidence that this can be more than one article or why the other articles belong here.

746:

or listify or even make a popper article. This category is too broad and poorly defined. The concept of using one type of structure to model another is just to ubiquitous in mathematics to be useful for chaterisation. You could potentially list every possible graph here as it will model some

2125:

The problem is that "There's no convenient way of adding sources for inclusion" in any category in Knowledge, not just this one. This is a vote that is not relevant to this category, but instead would insist that the whole category system be dismantled in its entirety.

3262:). I'm not wanting to start a big flame-war here, just saying that the same spelling should be used for the article and the category, I really don't care which one (speaking as an American who sometimes uses the British spelling she's trying to be more humourous 2537:- membership of this club is characteristic of a certain group of authors; it is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an article about such an author (and hence sourced); it is far easier to maintain than a list and just as easy for the user to consult. 3361:

I left a note on the talk page, but judging by the talk page header, nobody wants to consider any change of the article title (there is a banner at the top which implies that such comments should go on a sub-page where they can be more easily ignored). —

2161:

is forthcoming. As with every single category in Knowledge, reliable sources to support inclusion can only go into an article. You are describing generic limitations that apply to the entire category architecture in Knowledge, not just to this category.

1555:

I can see both sides of it, and am pretty close to neutral between the two choices (and would be interested in hearing if there were other options as well). I honestly actually only picked the one I did due to previous comments of yours : )

1805:

to return and explain his/her intentions. From the time in August that I posted the comment until the day before yesterday, the category's creator had been inactive, but s/he has reappeared, and I've added another user talk page note...

3645:

with this one as it looks like it is an attempt to get people to stalk me to an anonymous IP account. However, we can make this all go away by simply deleting the category which was maliciously started for reasons I can only surmise.

2337:

And if you'll note Hiding's comments in other discussions, he repeatedly suggests that unless an article can be written about a topic, then a category concerning the topic shouldn't exist. (Which may or may not be relevant in this

2330:) - You (Alansohn) may wish to re-read CLN. In any case, I think you have it backwards. We encourage a list to coincide with a category (it helps explain the grouping, the circumstances, and most importantly the sourcing). We do 676:

into the parent category. Since you did not understand my intention (which I think is still valid), this means I was not clear enough with the definition and name. For those interested in the topic, please see my explanations in

261:- Looks like we all agree on "Books about...". The problem with "countries by region" is that the members of the subcats aren't all countries, but geographical or geopolitical regions. And while I suppose I don't 3308:

humer, but just in case it's not familiar to all, I thought it would be good to have the original line here for reference: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" (from Scott's poem,

2374:

and from applying it as the relevant Knowledge guideline on the matter. I will also point out that there is already an article about the topic. I fully support the creation of a standalone list, in keeping with

2105:. No one's doubting the notability of the club, just the appropriateness of using a category for the purpose of listing its members. There should be a list made either in the main article or in a separate 1565:

Well, it is complicated. It basically means working out a structure, and then working out the names. Is this category going to hold articles or subcategories? That would, to my mind, influence the name.

2476:. I also note that there is no problem with sources as the article links to a list of members to 2001. Any bio that had this category should state that the subject is a member and link to that source. -- 1541:

I'm leaning more towards "Fictional characters in comedy", "Fictional characters in romance" and so on, sub-catting into fictional comics by genre and form, so "Fictional characters in comedy novels".

702:- Ok, after doing some reading for this nom, I just learned a lot about methematical mechanics. So thank you for that at least : ) - That said, this cat seems a result of you very recently splitting 2551:

A mention in another article is not in and of itself a source. A mention with a citation from a reliable source indicating that the membership was defining for the individual would be acceptable.

3679: 3575: 3282:) What infernal can of worms have you opened? Alas, Her Majesty is not amused... I fear the only solution that might enable us to avoid a full-blown civil war over this may be to rename both to 244:. I suggest "world regions" instead of "regions" to help clarify that this is not a place for books about regions (such as New England or Siberia) that are contained within a single country. -- 3352:

Shrug, if they want to move it to "Humor" in the future (I doubt it) this category can easily be renamed back. I don't care what the final result is, I just want consistency right now. —

706:. My main concern is that, due to even you not being certain about the target name, that we'll be back here in a few days with a new nom for a "better" name. As such, I dropped a note at 1338:- if, as I assume, it means to apply articles about particular fictional universes, as opposed to the rather fewer articles about the concept of a parallel universe as used in comics. 2069:- I submit ladies and gentlemen that membership in this club is insufficiently defining of its members to warrant categorization, and that a list should be placed in the main article. 3666:

puppet, rather than as a proper alternate account, delete and ] the creator. If there is such a claim, point to evidence, which has not been done on any (clearly) relevant page. —

3338:

could discuss this viable inconsistency if need be, and if they decide the overall solution would be to rename the category page, then the CFD could be raised citing that mandate. __

42: 37: 2088:

The most notable British fiction writers establishing a notable group for the purpose of organizing and establishing rules for mystery fiction is a strong defining characteristic.

2420:

And finally (and I don't believe I can stress this enough) - I think Otto4711's hit the nail on the head. Why do I think so? Well the evidence is your response. See, I did

3641:

If the question is, is this an "alternate accounts used in a manner forbidden by Knowledge's policies" as Elonka wrote? Then the answer is "no". I am tempted to go to

1275:- The words are mostly interchangeable, but I see "parallel" as more inclusive, whereas "alternate" seems predicated on the changing of certain circumstances, à la 2334:

necessarily encourage a category when a list already exists. The category system is a navigational tool, it should not be used to replace content in article space.

3697:

Editing while not logged into any account might violates the spirit of that ruling but I'd rather not speculate about this. Has anyone asked arbcom to clarify? —

1634:

tragic (even at the same moment). And thhere are, as I'm sure you can imagine, even more complex than that, depending on the character development in the work. -

1627:

My presumption (based upon category inclusion, and the rather terse introduction of the cat) is that this is for characters that are presented in works of comedy.

3714:) that I can't imagine that SA was making any attempt to hide his identity. If he was I'd class this as probably the worst attempt at a sockpuppet in history. 2240:

states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". If you would like to change

1716:, which suggest that at least this should be a list. However, considering that this is merely categorising cities by a particular US government program (See 3592: 2038: 3334:

I don't think we should use this forum to deal with the British English vs. American English problem as a first instance. In this particular case I think

1301:

I don't have much of a problem with that, but then the parent should be renamed similarly. (And I was attempting to skirt that question in this nom : ) -

172:

I think Category:Books about a region sounds awful. However, it is better than the existing name which I would take to be books coming out of a region. __

2449:

things which could rebut what the others are saying, but you neglected to even notice the value of the comment I placed at the bottom of this discussion.

452: 3584: 1630:

Further, I don't believe that "characters" have "genre", but the work that they reside in may. For example, a character may be simulataneously comedic

1137:

to label people whose opinions other people don't like, of which there are likely to be very many indeed, followed by a commensurate number of rows.

2400:

the CLN guidelines. But theguidelines intent is to offer a guidance as to the benefits and liabilities of difefrent ways to present information for

2220:

is policy. If the consensus is that this information is more usefully presented as a list than as a category, then the category is to be deleted. —

1133:

for articles about a particular psychological condition: of which there are unlikely to be very many, or even any. It would equally obviously be

21: 3110: 3085: 3064: 3033: 3011: 2029: 711: 541: 655: 3029: 1766: 1733: 412: 545: 17: 2354: 1529: 1500: 2575: 2522: 707: 400: 3849:

I have seen many CfDs for Images by ..., all of which have been deleted. Also, doesn't help coordinate encyclopedic collaboration.

1512: 630: 2801: 2202:

encourages the coexistence and synergy of both lists AND categories. Is there any policy reason for this category to be deleted?

2158: 1911: 1713: 625: 396: 3867: 2046: 1919: 313: 1117:. Inclusion, if kept, would be solely at the discretion of Knowledge editors, which is, of course, contrary to core policy. - 216: 190: 1504: 1478: 1236: 549: 286: 241: 194: 1902: 2106: 1706: 1319: 747:

structure or other. I could see an interesting article about the various ways graphs are used to model other structures. --

1496: 1353: 1315: 1247: 1217: 962: 1240: 3736: 3689: 2589: 2109:

article, where adequate sources can be added. There's no convenient way of adding sources for inclusion in a category. —

300: 282: 237: 3458:. It's bad enough the main article was moved in violation of policy, at least the category can stay where it belongs. — 1720:), I'm not sure that this should even be a list (besides the 500+ members that the category would potentially have). - 3898: 3879: 3861: 3806: 3739: 3723: 3701: 3692: 3673: 3655: 3636: 3625: 3569: 3510: 3493: 3469: 3450: 3429: 3414: 3405: 3380: 3366: 3356: 3347: 3322: 3295: 3272: 3205: 3146: 3127: 3101: 3076: 3053: 3019: 2957: 2933: 2880: 2821: 2809: 2792: 2774: 2697: 2638: 2613: 2601: 2582: 2560: 2546: 2529: 2508: 2491: 2456: 2452:

So you'll please pardon me if I'm placing little weight on your "opinion", and highly doubt any closer will either. -

2388: 2365: 2313: 2284: 2264: 2231: 2211: 2194: 2171: 2152: 2135: 2120: 2097: 2078: 2021: 1962: 1948: 1894: 1829: 1815: 1796: 1781: 1756: 1740: 1724: 1699: 1638: 1619: 1584: 1575: 1560: 1550: 1536: 1519: 1486: 1423: 1406: 1387: 1374: 1360: 1347: 1326: 1305: 1296: 1267: 1254: 1226: 1163: 1146: 1121: 1101: 1089: 1076: 1040: 1016: 999: 970: 945: 884: 866: 846: 828: 803: 776: 756: 736: 718: 690: 667: 615: 556: 526: 508: 490: 473: 464: 443: 424: 386: 327: 304: 273: 253: 228: 208: 181: 164: 147: 130: 117: 93: 953: 3821: 1598:- there are comedy, or comic, or comedic, or just plain funny, characters in works that are not works of comedy (eg 3651: 3621: 3486: 2947: 324: 107: 3918: 3787: 3763: 3550: 3526: 3478: 3286:(or perhaps some other, equally elegant variant) -- with, of course, redirects from both of the rival spellings. 3186: 3162: 3142: 3049: 2997: 2973: 2861: 2837: 2678: 2654: 2002: 1978: 1875: 1851: 1680: 1656: 1464: 1440: 1203: 1179: 1088:. There is too much room for contention here over a term that seems only to be pop psychology (does it belong in 990:

Terminology proposed by a single writer which could be considered derogatory and is highly likely to be misused.

926: 902: 596: 572: 367: 343: 317: 74: 3917:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3762:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3525:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3161:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2972:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2836:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2653:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1977:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1850:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1655:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1439:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1178:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

901:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

571:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

342:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3812: 3786: