Category talk:Cricket subcategories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was marked for deletion on 29th Jan 2005. The discussion petered out after three or four weeks with no apparent prospect of agreement, Wincoote 01:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this category contains as subcategories all of the subcategories, sub-subcategories, sub-sub-sub categories, etc that fall under Category:Cricket. This seems highly inelegant and unnecessary to me; when the Wikimedia software supports category-aggregation it should be able to get the same results from the main category:cricket as from this one. Bryan 22:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This category is here to help those (such as me) who are categorising cricketers and cricket-related articles. It is a useful tool for those who categorise cricket-related articles to keep track of all the various categories that there are. There are a number of useful and interesting ways to categorise cricketers - where they are from, who they played for, whether they played test or international cricket, or whether they received particular Cricket Awards, etc. Please do not delete it. It will hinder cricket-classification! jguk 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just looked in a few randomly selected subcategories, and the ones I picked looked like they'd been fairly thoroughly subcategorized already. Have you been removing these subcategories from Category:Cricket subcategories as you go so we can tell when the work is 'done' and this category can be removed? Alternately, if you want this to be a permanent feature, I'd suggest moving the list somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject cricket categorization so it won't be tangled up in the 'user-oriented' portion of Wikipedia. Bryan 00:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's just a bizarre comment. This was done to help users. Philip 13:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it was done to help editors. The two groups often overlap, but they aren't the same - hence the existence of the Wikipedia: namespace, Wikiproject pages, talk: pages, and all the other utilities that are designed to assist editors without mixing directly into the encyclopedic content of the article. Bryan 08:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong about the reason why is was created, but not I don't think about it's usefulness. Wincoote 01:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If that is the point, a list would do the job just as well, and would generally be more in keeping with categorization procedures. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps even better, for that matter. With a non-category list you'd be able to browse through all of them on one page rather than just 200 at a time, and you'd be able to organize them in whatever order you saw fit. I can do the grunt work of copying the subcategory links from here to a list page, if you like. Bryan 00:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion lists are a greatly inferior system and a legacy of an immature period of Wikipedia that we are now moving on from Philip 13:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And in my opinion, lists and categories simply fulfil different purposes. It's possible to create a list that does things that categories don't, and it's possible to create a category that does things that lists don't. They each have their place. Bryan 08:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But here we have a category system which is working fine. Do you understand how dispiriting it is for people who are putting great effort into a section of Wikipedia to be confronted by fierce opposition to decisions they have taken on marginal points, and how likely this sort of action is to deprive Wikipedia of contribuitors? Philip 03:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand hard work, I've even offered to do some on this list's behalf. However, if that hard work is going into something that IMO doesn't fit properly into Wikipedia's conventions, I am not going to let the fact that hard work went into it stop me from recommending that it be changed. If a group of users were to come on Wikipedia and spend a couple of weeks slaving away to create a series of articles containing nicely formatted copies of the full text of Shakespeare's works, cross-referenced and annotated, I'm still going to put it all up for VfD (with transwiki to Wikisource, in this hypothetical case) because it's not something that fits Wikipedia's conventions and guidelines. This shouldn't be considered a personal insult. Bryan 02:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It isn't inconsistent. It does absolutely no harm to any aspect of the existing system. It is an example of multiple categorisation systems, a feature which is enthusiastically endorsed somewhere on the policy pages. Philip 20:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

meaningful alternate categorization schemes are useful. This is just a housekeeping tool, and housekeeping tools should be tucked out of sight from the casual user. I don't think we're going to convince each other of anything more at this point, though, so I'm just going to let the vote fall as it will - probably into /unresolved, for the time being. I'll create that wikiproject list too, so that perhaps next time this comes up there won't be so much fear of "lost work." Bryan 01:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did consider the alternative of a list page - but it's just harder to maintain than a categorisation when what you're doing is categorising (which itself is time-consuming, particularly when Wikipedia is on "go slow". Also, it's easy to see whether a category has gone onto the list if the list is a category! Put simply, the category is a tool - it helps, particularly when cricket-related articles on Wikipedia are in their infancy. I recognise your concern, and I myself would prefer it if the proposed "look-through" ability for categories was up and running too, as I admit this category is not ideal. But until that ability is available, it would be helpful to keep this category because of its usefulness.

Perhaps you'll allow me a few moments to explain why it's useful, particularly when categorising cricketers by team. There are many first-class cricket teams - some by what might be considered unusual names (see my request vis-a-vis "Pakistan International Airlines cricketer" above). Not only that, but many team names have changed over the years. It is difficult for me as an Englishman to remember it all! This category allows me to check whether we have similar categories already - one just cropped up for me with a cricketer who played for Natal. Did we have a KwaZulu-Natal cricketers category, or should I create a new Natal cricketers category?

What about when dealing with a cricketer who has gone on to write books, broadcast, get knighted and become President of the MCC? Looking at Category:Cricket subcategories makes it easy to decide how to categorise him.

Anyway, now I have outlined that this category has a useful, practical purpose, I trust you will withdraw the request for deletion, jguk 01:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But if they were in a list you could group all the "team" categories in one spot or do a text-search for "Natal" to make it even easier. Yes, maintaining a list requires a bit more hands-on work, but not a whole lot more. I think it's a price that should be paid in this case, since the current category intrudes into every existing cricket category in a way that isn't in accordance with the existing practices of how category graphs should be structured. I'm willing to help with the work, but I'm afraid my vote in favor of deleting this category still stands. Bryan 01:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Did you pause to consider the amount of effort that was put into this before you tried to get it wiped? It is an extremely useful enhancement in my opinion, and any one who doesn't like it can just ignore it. Philip 13:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The amount of effort that went into a category's creation isn't especially relevant IMO to the question of whether the category should exist. Besides, I've offered whatever elbow grease is necessary to preserve the listing of categories in the form of an actual list, so the work wouldn't be wasted. Bryan 08:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to Delete -- that people see this sort of thing as helpful seems to me to indicate that the subcategorization schema may be too complex. And I don't understand why a plain list article would not be adequate to serve the same purpose rather than a separate category. older≠wiser 13:30, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think we have too many cricket sub-categories, but can you imagine de-organising them and just having them all in Category:Cricket - that would be an insanely long list, and consequently not a very usable one. Guettarda 14:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, I don't think anyone is suggesting doing away with all the subcategories--simply that the anomalous category, Category:Cricket subcategories, which lists all the subcategories be deleted. older≠wiser 14:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this subcategory is deleted, then all the sub(sub)categories within it would have to become subcategories of some higher category - logically, they would become subcategories of Category:Cricket. Inasmuch as these categories already extend over two pages, this would make the Category that much less usable (something like Category:stubs. It isn't an ideally named category, and it may be possible to replace it with a more hierarchical system, but simply deleting it is likely to result in reduced functionality. Guettarda 23:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell, all of these subcategories are already children of another Cricket-related category. As I understand it Category:Cricket subcategories is an alternate presentation of the entire tree under Category:Cricket. older≠wiser 23:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes it is, and a very useful one too. Philip 03:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - for now. Looks like this is a temporary set-up while the work is being done. I can understand how it would be easier to organise things this way than via a list (in fact, I'm surprised it isn't done more often). I'd expect to see this deleted eventually though - hopefully fairly soon. Grutness|^hello? 23:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the "work" will take years, that is an acceptable way of saying the category should be kept Philip 03:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I see this as a strong argument for deleting it. If it looks like a temporary set-up but it's not going to go away for years, then it definitely needs to be tucked away in a place where casual readers aren't going to stumble across it. Bryan 02:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Copy into list format and delete. -Sean Curtin 23:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doing that would be completely unproductive and slow down the categorisation of cricket-related articles as a list takes longer to maintain than a category (particularly given the speed WP can get down to sometimes). (It also wouldn't take long for someone to list "List of cricket subcategories" up for VfD!) It's one category, it is useful to those categorising cricket, it should be a slam-dunk keep, jguk 07:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I normally wouldn't be on such a crusade if it really was "just one category", but this particular category intrudes into all 265 cricket subcategories as well and makes hash of the category guidelines (for example, "A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in"). As for the list being VfDed, make it a subpage of WikiProject cricket and I don't see any way it could possibly get deleted, since that's the sort of thing that wikiprojects are for. Bryan 00:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for the immediate future. The category is hugely useful for those of us writing and editing cricket-related articles, since their categorisation is (potentially) so complex. I can't imagine any of the participants in WikiProject Cricket supporting this deletion. --Ngb 12:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And I'm quite willing to put in all the effort necessary to create a list you can use for all that (still completely unspecified) work you guys do over there, as a replacement. This category isn't in the right place if it's simply part of a WikiProject; it's been put into user space. As you said yourself in the Wikiproject's talk page "there are really very, very few of us adding cricket content on a regular basis." If this category is just for those people, and not for the people who come here to read about cricket, I'm more convinced than ever that this isn't appropriate. Bryan 00:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And you're also willing to manually update this hypothetical list for us every time one of us makes a change to the category system? No, didn't think so. --Ngb 09:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The way some people become determined to obstruct other people's projects is one of the most disagreeable features of Wikipedia. Wincoote 01:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not doing this because I hate cricket and everything it stands for, you know. I've offered my help repeatedly, though ngb apparently doesn't believe me for some reason. But you guys won't even tell me what work you're using this subcategory for. Well, fine, I'll leave you to do whatever it is you do on your own. However, I am going to hold you to your assurances that this is a temporary category; in a couple of months I'll stop by again and see if anything is actually being done with it. Bryan 00:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete or else temporarily rename to category:wikiProject cricket categories or somesuch so that it is clear that it is not in the main project category. the subcategories should all be directly under category:cricket. clarkk 05:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That would make the main list intimidating for new users. As it is, we have the best of both worlds, with a main list which can be scanned in seconds, and also a full list for those who want more detail. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It should be a standard feature. Wincoote 15:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] June 14 2005 CfD

There was a second CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 14#Category:Cricket subcategories, result was no consensus.

Since the category appears to be sticking around for a while yet, I've started moving the category tags over into category talk pages yet again. Bryan 01:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put things back as they were. Your proposal has been defeated twice, and I would ask you to have the good grace to accept that. You seem to be an American, and your page gives no indication that you have any interest in cricket. Thank you. Calsicol 12:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"My proposal" hasn't been defeated, those were votes for deletion up there that didn't pass. As for my nationality or whether I have any interest in cricket or not, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether I'm allowed to have a say in this. I am a Wikipedia editor, I have an interest in how Wikipedia's category structure is laid out. That gives me just as much right to decide how I prefer these things to be laid out as anyone. In fact, Wikipedia's guidelines are on my side in this: Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace. Bryan 17:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. You didn't get what you wanted, and then you attacked this in another way. It is hard to understand. Even if you don't like this system, I just can't grasp why you loathe something so harmless so much. There are any number of ways you could put your time to better use for the sake of Wikipedia. Calsicol 00:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the moving of tags into talk was a compromise I proposed the first time this went around - what I actually want is for this category to be deleted entirely and replaced with a list. I've explained why I don't like this category many times, it's a "meta" category intended for editorial use that's embedded in the "regular user" category network of Wikipedia. I have a strong sense of tidiness and consistency so correcting this seems like a good use of my time to me. Anyway, I'm not going to just "give up" until either I'm convinced otherwise, I'm convinved that a substantial consensus exists that this is okay despite its inelegance (the most recent CfD seemed to suggest otherwise), or a compromise comes along that sticks. Could you perhaps explain why you thought moving the tags to talk: was unacceptable? You must feel pretty strongly about it too, I note that you started reverting me with your 38th edit after signing up on Wikipedia. Bryan 03:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)