User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Examining the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme
The phase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme
is part of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline, and has been since it was first developed in December 2006. But it is unclear what it means, why and how this specific wording was developed, and what are good examples. More importantly, there is widespread disagreement whether it is really works to prevent the deletion or merger of certain important/helpful categories, or that it can be employed as a pretext to oppose the deletion or merger of any category whatsoever, no matter how unimportant/unhelpful that category is. As a result, there is no consensus on how to interpret it, and whether it should stay in the WP:SMALLCAT guideline as it is, should be amended to be clear and work as intended, or be removed the WP:SMALLCAT guideline for serving no apparent useful purpose.
The present text seeks to examine all these questions.
Development edit
Reconstruction made by Nederlandse Leeuw (me) on 3 August 2023:
Development of the phrase in December 2006
|
---|
The basic text of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline was haphazardly put together in December 2006. The most relevant diffs are between 18:22, 21 December 2006 and 22:15, 22 December 2006. At the time it was still a proposed guideline. It was put together through unilateral actions of several editors (including Dugwiki, jc37, Tim!, Circeus and others) making it up as they went along, sometimes reverting each other and almost edit-warring in the process. There was virtually no talk page discussion (just Dugwiki making two comments explaining their own edits). To be fair, that is how many early policies and guidelines on English Wikipedia were made; whatever stuck became customary law. It's only later that amendments were formally proposed and voted on, but per WP:PGCHANGE a lot can still be WP:BOLDly amended. Most disagreements in December 2006 about SMALLCAT were apparently exactly about examples of what But honestly, I have no idea what they were trying to say, and I believe they also didn't really understand each other. We just ended up with the present text of |
Reconstruction made by jc37 (one of the initial developers, who knows more about it than I, Nederlandse Leeuw, do) on 24 July 2023:
SmallCat early history (November 2006 – August 2007)
|
---|
As can be seen, originally, "No potential for growth" was the title. The title did not use the word "small", until I added it several edits later: [3].
There were many reasons to change from a set number. For one thing, it had become divisive. Things were getting nominated due to numbers alone, without actually looking to see if it was part of an overall system. (And had also begun to be set for Speedy Deletion.) As can be seen, "Songs by artist" had really become contentious over this. For example, this was the edit right after Radiant! initially added the section. Which was then re-written in the next edit here. Another reason is semi-related - gaming the system. If you set a finite amount, then: "anything over that amount should be an automatic Keep, right?" Or so went the argument. It also was leading to category "stuffing". As it's not that difficult to find anything anywhere that could maybe fit under a category, just to prevent its deletion. So an indeterminate amount, handled on a case-by-case basis at WP:CFD, was seen to be better. That said, there have always been those who want a set amount, because they have the seeming idealistic hope that it would reduce discussions at CfD, or that it might dissuade category creators from making small categories. Neither of which has been proven out over the years. - jc37 14:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC) |
Disagreements over interpretation edit
These case studies are just examples. They are not meant to rehash old discussions, or cast the comments or actions of certain users in a bad light. They are only intended to illustrate the point that there are frequent disagreements over how to interpret the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme
, and why that makes categorisation discussions difficult, whereas a guideline should guide users to make such discussions easier.
Disagreements over "sub-categorization scheme" edit
Counterfit, Counterfit albums, Counterfit album covers (April 2011)
|
---|
Reconstruction: There was an article about a band named "Counterfit", which apparently only produced one album ever, Managing the Details of an Undertaking, and then disbanded. The article on the band and the album were later soft-deleted on 28 October 2021: (Unsourced, fails WP:MUSIC. They released one album 20 years ago on a non-notable label, then disbanded two years later.) As of 17 April 2011, there were apparently 3 categories, containing 5 items in total:
Analysis
|
Disagreements over "large overall" edit
Mayors of Kirkland Lake (2014)
|
---|
Analysis
|
Finding of Fact: "reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions" edit
Smallcat dispute Finding of Fact no. #1 (August 2023)
|
---|
|