Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of exponential topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of exponential topics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

• Superseded by Category:Exponentials. --Smack 19:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep. Makes no sense at all to me to delete. Categories do not 'supersede' overlapping lists. That's a misconception. Charles Matthews 19:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Keep. Lists and categories have different purposes. RickK 20:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
3. Keep —siroχo 20:40, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
4. KEEP!! It is exceeedingly uncouth to suggest that a topics list can be superseded by a category. Categories are a tool of primitive cave-dwellers who communicate only by grunting; topics lists are used by civilized people who can read and write and have refined tastes. I would rather abolish categories completely. You cannot change the title of a category without editing every page that links to it. You cannot exploit invisible links to discussion pages in a category the way you can on a topics list (so that when you click on "related changes" you see changes to discussion pages as well as to articles). You cannot put "red links" in a category, inviting people to create pages. You cannot adapt the organization and layout of the list of categories to the topic. And you have to read that "There are 1 subcategories [sic!] ...." If we're going to use categories to replace topics lists, why don't we abolish computers while we're at it and just use paper? And then abolish that and carve words in stone? And then abolish language and go back to grunting. And then abolish communication. Michael Hardy 20:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • Grunt grunt. "Exceeedingly". "abolish that are carve words in stone". "tool of primite cave-dwellers". [sic!] Grunt grunt. ;-) — Matt 21:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Categories have the single biggest advantage that outweighs all that. Categories tag the article, and do so in a consistent way, thus keeping metadata machine processable and together with the data. Given organisation is one of the biggest problems facing wikipedia as it grows, I think that's a huge win. That said, unfortunately policy is that lists are OK. So I have to vote keep. Shane King 00:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
6. Keep. anthony 警告 21:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Keep. Lists are lovely. Proteus (Talk) 22:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Keep. -- Mattworld 22:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
9. Keep. Without lists, no order. Without order, no life. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 22:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Keep. zoney ♣ talk 23:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Keep [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 23:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Keep. Lists good, grunts bad. Key45 00:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Keep. In order for one thing to supersede another, you can't be losing important functionality. Categories aren't advanced enough yet. -- nknight 01:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Keep: lists and categories are complementary --Phil | Talk 09:50, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
15. Keep. Lists can do things cats cannot do, and vice versa. We need both. Filiocht 10:00, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
16. Keep. I think that for readers, bare lists like this one provide no advantage over a category. For editors, they're clearly useful tools (of course, on Wikipedia, the distinction between editors and readers is simply that readers haven't clicked the "edit" link yet...). Still, I could go along with an argument to move this list out of the main article space and into, say, a subpage of a WikiProject. — Matt 10:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    It's no longer just a "bare" list: it now has an invisible link to the talk page for each article, so that clicking on "related changes" includes edits to the discussion pages as well as the articles. Michael Hardy 01:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Quite, but still, note that I said "For readers, bare lists like this provide no advantage over a category"; Related Changes is an editor-oriented feature. — Matt 22:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    ... and besides, there is the potential for organizing the list -- making sections for subtopics. It hasn't happened yet, but it could as the page evolves. That's another reason why it should remain within the main article space. Michael Hardy 01:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

17. Keep. Lists are not valid deletion candidates just because there's similar categories according to current policy. Lists and categories serve different purposes. Although I prefer cats myself, I don't see a valid reason to delete this. Keep. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
18. Keep. Both lists and catagories have different advantages, and I think Wikipedia should have both. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Delete

1. Delete. This list does nothing that categories don't do, as it's just a list of pages with membership in the semantic category. I can see an argument for keeping lists with a particular sort of organization, but if it's just a flat "on the list" or "not on the list" distinction, categories are equivalent and more maintainable. --Delirium 19:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
   • This list now does something that categories cannot do. I have added invisible links so that edits to discussion pages will also appear when one clicks on "related changes". Even lists that cannot do what categories cannot do have the potential to do so with some editing. Not only what I just did, but also consider list of combinatorics topics or list of geometry topics, in which the lists are organized. Categories cannot be organized -- only alphabetized. Michael Hardy 01:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Delete, no need to have duplicate data structures. If it gets kept it should at least be renamed, List of exponential topics ≠ List of topics to do with exponentiation, though I have no idea what it does mean. --fvw* 19:40, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
   • List of exponential topics is definitely a better name than list of topics to do with exponentiation or anything similar. Michael Hardy 23:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
     • Why? The topics aren't exponential. --fvw* 03:39, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
       • Consider list of geometry topics. You could just as well say "the topics aren't geometry". Exponential is being used here as a noun, as if a list were titled list of Mount Everest topics. The topics are not Mound Everest. This is a page that lists articles about exponentials of one sort or another, not (primarily, at least), a page that lists topics about exponents or exponentiation. Michael Hardy 00:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
         • Ah right, I get where you're coming from now, though I still don't like it since it takes a conscious effort to scan it as a noun instead of an adjective (an effect which is all the stronger because it links to list of logarithm topics as list of logarithmic topics which I will go correct after writing this). Mind you, I don't think list of noun topics is a proper list name anyway, it's a list of topics related to noun, but judging by the number of lists named by that I suspect I'm a minority in that. --fvw* 02:20, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.