Category talk:Underutilized crops/CfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of the talk page during and after a Category for deletion discussion between February and May, 2006.

Isn't this whole category a violation of the NPOV policy? Citizen Premier 06:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, yes. Many of them are little-cultivated for all sorts of good reasons. I'd suggest moving it to Category:Minor crops. - MPF 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Me too. The comments at the top of the page seems to say that this category should include all crops except wheat, maize and rice! At the very least, the category should be deleted and replaced by the much, much smaller Category:Overutilized crops 8-). And, of course, one may argue that even those three crops are underutilized in some sense... All the best, Jorge Stolfi 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources

I thought it might be helpful to list some uses of the term "underutilized crops", and sources for lists of them.

[edit] Organizations

[edit] Books and Articles

I think that the category really ought to qualify under the NPOV policy...

Waitak 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see why people might feel divided about it, since the word "underutilized" does have a connotation that it "should" be used more, even though for the purpose of the category, the word "underutilized" more narrowly means the crops are not utilized as much as they could be. The former creeps on POV but the latter, as an objective statement on the world's current crop usage pattern, is NPOV.
Ironically, the sources you listed might somewhat harm the case for NPOV, since many of these sources clearly have promoting the use of underutilized crops as an agenda, mission or goal. Nevertheless, the sources, particularly in demonstrating UN interest, does at least lead support that the category is not a mere triviality (in defense to arguments like the "every farmer call his/her crop underutilized" spouted in the CfD debate), that it is a notable category. 24.16.32.174 14:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A category that reports on what organisations are doing, from their point of view, is different from a POV category. Waitak 08:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survived CFD

Incredibly this POV category title survived CFD, the discussion can be found here. I have to say it's really annoying to have a promotional statement like this in my face every time I look at one of the crop pages. I'm sure the world will be a better place if these things are cultivated more, but I just preferred it when Wikipedia didn't take sides. Kappa 18:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a confrontational statement. The point and outcome of the discussion was that the community didn't agree with you that it's a POV category. As I said in the discussion, and (in response to your comments there) right on the page, could doesn't mean should. In any case, I'm sorry that you're so unhappy with the outcome, and I'm grateful for having gone through the process. I think that it made the category page a lot better. Sincerely, thank you for raising the question. Waitak 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't find Kappa's statement "confrontational" at all. Obviously (s)he is not pleased with the outcome, but what else would one expect from a debate with an outcome of "no consensus" (exact words from the archived discussion)? Indeed, from such an outcome, I think it's far more accurate, honest and fair to say that the community is divided over the category's POV/NPOV status, rather than "didn't agree with Kappa that it's a POV category" as you stated above. 24.16.32.174 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. I retract my statement that the community didn't agree, in favor of the less loaded description that you provide above. I still find the statement quite confrontational. Maybe I'm being slow here, but I've tried hard to see what the POV is that Kappa objects to, and I can't. Saying "Incredibly this POV category title survived CFD" is quite different from "I find the category title POV, but enough people disagreed that the category survived". I care about Wikipedia too as, I'm sure, do the others who voted against the CFD. If Kappa had been able to show what the POV is, I honestly would have voted for deletion myself! As it is, I find the comment above to be unkind and uncalled-for. Waitak 08:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)