Talk:Cult of the Dead Cow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] name
"Spelled in all capital letters by the group?" Yes, because that is the correct spelling. It's not worth arguing over, and I won't revert your edits, but it seems to me that whoever "owns" the name should be able to determine how it's spelled, including capitalization. --Myles Long/cDc 01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I lied. I'm going to revert the spelling in the article, but I won't move the article back to the correct title. --Myles Long/cDc 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is like USA Today and PGA Tour, where they insist that their names are spelled in all caps, but they are the only ones who do it. tregoweth 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is exactly like USA TODAY and PGA TOUR. Those articles should be in all caps, too, since those are the correct names of what the article is describing. It doesn't matter if "they are the only ones who do it;" they have the right to say how their name should be spelled, just as cDc does. It's not wrong just because you don't agree or don't get it. Next, you're going to tell me that Ralph Fiennes should pronounce his name "ralf" like everyone else who uses that spelling. --Myles Long/cDc 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category removal
All of the categories that this article was in are legitimate. cDc has a blog, linked from the article. It is a netlabel (several singles and albums released, also linked from the article. It is part of DIY culture, so that category is legit. It has a forum, linked from the article (so that's legit). It is a hacker magazine; this is a no-brainer. cDc also relates to politics and technology, see the article for details. I've reinstated the categories removed by Ashibaka. These are not "catspam." --Myles Long 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The question is whether the article is primarily about those subjects. And it is not. Something Awful is a blog but it's not listed in the blogs category. See WP:CAT. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see nothing relevant to this discussion at WP:CAT; perhaps you meant WP:CG? All that's relevant there, imo, is "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." That's definitely true; including too many categories is silly. I think that restraint has been used in categorizing this article; it could be placed in categories related to activism, human rights, etc., etc., but these are probably overkill. However, I stand by my statement that all of the categories it is currently in are relevant. The article could probably use some work to further explain their relevance, but there is nothing wrong with it the way it is. --Myles Long 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you make an article about the Cult of the Dead Cow's blog, the blog category would be relevant to that. But this article is about the organization, which is not primarily a blog. Ashibaka tock 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- ...in your opinion. --Myles Long 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Shall we ask for a WP:3O? Ashibaka tock 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I find the categories appropriate. Quatloo 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like we just got one. --Myles Long 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- ...in your opinion. --Myles Long 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you make an article about the Cult of the Dead Cow's blog, the blog category would be relevant to that. But this article is about the organization, which is not primarily a blog. Ashibaka tock 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see nothing relevant to this discussion at WP:CAT; perhaps you meant WP:CG? All that's relevant there, imo, is "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." That's definitely true; including too many categories is silly. I think that restraint has been used in categorizing this article; it could be placed in categories related to activism, human rights, etc., etc., but these are probably overkill. However, I stand by my statement that all of the categories it is currently in are relevant. The article could probably use some work to further explain their relevance, but there is nothing wrong with it the way it is. --Myles Long 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
