User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
User:Tatupiplu
| did not take the course |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Notability
|
User: Synoman Barris
Completed sections -   Passed Atsme 💬 📧 3:07 pm, 16 August 2020
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
@Atsme: Seems like am done with the section. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Steps to determine notability
Discussion✓ Pass Synoman Barris, let's discuss here. First, I need the link to the draft. I'm using Kaveri Priyam as part of the process. Atsme Talk 📧 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines
Editors can demonstrate good faith by,articulating their honest motives and by making edits that show their willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of their edits and avoidance of gaming the system. When dealing with bad faith edits or editors, never loose your cool and civility. We should also never accuse other editors of bad faith without proper evidences inform of diff. Accusing other editors without evidence may be termed as personal attack and hence may escalate the dispute/conflict.
It is one of the most sensitive areas of Wikipedia hence editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. When writing BLP articles, the following must be checked:
When using sources and determining reliable sources, we should avoid,
Presumption in favour of Privacy ✓ Pass
Note BLP article should not be used by editors with COI to continue disputes
COI editors should:
Paid editors should:
According to WP:COPYOTHERS, all creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed.Also we should never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. According to WP:COPYLINK, since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material unless you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Noted :
A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real.A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism, and perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banning.A hoax is considered notable if it evaded detection for more than one month or was discussed by reliable sources in the media or may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years.
Users who add hoaxes to Wikipedia should be warned with a uw- hoax and the article tagged for CSD with {{dB-hoax}}.
Communications
Trainees note I had to redo some of the sections above. I read it through a couple of times, if their is anything I missed, let me know. Cheers
@Atsme: Redoing Ping Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme Re-did most of the sections above, mind taking a quick look and thank you for taking your time to help and train me, you are a great human being. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deletion
Point to note An AfD is the most preferable option when in doubt over the notability of the subject of the article
Reviewing Procedures
@Atsme: Did the task above. I read the notice board and I sketched the flowchart on a note book to further familiarize myself with it. From my contribution, over the past few days I have been cleaning articles by adding categories ,cleaning citations, adding Wikiprojects, doing minor typos and fixing per WP:MOS. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User:JJPMaster
| Completed sections - Passed Atsme 💬 📧 6:59 am, 1 December 2020
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
JJPMaster, this is the beginning of your NPP training. When in edit view, you will see a hidden text instruction under each subsection. You are expected to present, in your own words, a short summary of what you have learned about the respective policy or guideline. After you complete the first subsection (Notability), I will provide the next subsection per the list at User:Atsme/NPP training. It may seem like a lot to do at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training/exam is a drop in the bucket. Keep in mind, your reactions are also part of the exam. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as the step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you don't quite understand something. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Notability (Pt 1)
Question: When should an article's content be merged into another article versus when it should the article be deleted in its entirety?
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt 2)
Assuming good faith is a principle that means "assume that an editor's intentions were good". This does not always apply, for instance, if there is evidence that an editor's intentions weren't good, there is no need to assume that they were good. Aggressively citing the guideline is not a good idea (links to my favorite essays of all time: Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith), as it is possible that good faith is being assumed. When it is believed that an editor is acting in bad faith, then one must remain civil and avoid personal attacks and edit warring. In case you believe that an editor is acting in bad faith, you must provide evidence such as diffs. When dealing with newcomers, assuming good faith is very important, because they may not fully understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They may believe that their behavior is appropriate or that the policies which prohibit them from doing actions are wrong.
Content about living persons must be adequately sourced, even to a greater extent than content that is not about living persons. Unsourced material on living persons may be removed as soon as it is identified. BLPs must keep the subject's privacy in mind. BLPs must be written with a neutral tone that summarizes reliable and independent secondary sources (at this point I've said this so many times I'll just abbreviate it as RISS) and/or certain self-published sources (they must still remain neutral, not include claims about third parties, and be related to the subject). The tone of BLPs must not use imprecise language unless said language is used in reliable sources. BLPs must attribute opinions in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Undue weight should not be given to particular viewpoints, especially ones that very small minorities have. Material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" must be sourced for all articles, while on BLPs, any contentious unsourced content must be removed without discussion, no matter the tone of the material. Reliable sources are preferred to be secondary sources for all articles, especially BLPs, where primary sources should almost never be used, such as court records and other public records. Self-published sources should especially be avoided, unless they are written by the subject of the article, as long as they are not the main sources used on the article, are undoubtedly true, and also meet my aforementioned criteria (they must still remain neutral, not include claims about third parties, and be related to the subject). Contentious material about living people must immediately be removed if it is unsourced, is original research, relies on self-published sources not written by the subject, or relies on sources that are in any other way unreliable. If an incident is notable and well-documented, it belongs in the article. Full names and dates of birth belong in the article if and only if they are well-sourced, however, email addresses, home addresses, or phone numbers do NOT belong in the article and should be oversighted. Articles on living people who are not well-known must only contain sourced material that demonstrates the subject's notability. If a person is notable only for one event, an article should not be created about them if all reliable sources about them are in the context of one event, the subject is a low-profile individual, and if the event itself is not notable. If an already notable person is accused of a crime, until they are convicted, their article should not contain material that claims that there was a crime committed. BLP policies apply to all namespaces, for instance, if you create a user page making unsourced accusations about a controversial political figure, it may still violate BLP policies and/or get deleted. If your username contains contentious material about living persons, it must be oversighted. Any person who has been born in the past 115 years is protected by the BLP policy unless they have been confirmed to be dead by a reliable source. Recently dead persons are protected by the policy until it has been at most 2 years since their death. Pages that contain severe BLP violations (such as Gerard Sutton (referee)) may be protected and users that add severe BLP violations to articles may be blocked.
Conflict of interest editing is defined as editing articles about yourself or someone with whom you have some connection. It is strongly discouraged. COI editors and paid editors are required to disclose their COI on their user page, and paid editors must disclose who is paying them to edit. COI editors are recommended to, instead of directly editing articles for which they have a COI, to request that the articles be edited on their behalf. Paid editors especially must disclose their COIs. They must disclose both who is paying them, and disclose what the edits are being made about (unless the edits are being made about the employer). If paid editing services are linked to any accounts on external websites, said external websites must be linked on the editor's user page. COI editing is not simply bias, that is, COI editing describes not the nature of the edits, but the relationships of the editor, for whom the COI edits are made. Undisclosed COI editors tend to add content that violates Wikipedia guidelines and policies (especially neutral point of view) which is why it is discouraged. In some cases, the text added by paid contributors may include copyright violations from, for instance, the company's website, in which it cannot be added. In other cases, if the paid contributor writes text on the company who is paying them, the copyright is owned by the company providing the paid services because it is considered a "work made for hire".
Question: What is the meaning of the phrase "with respect to a certain judgment" in the definition for an actual COI?
Wikipedia's content is protected under the CC BY-SA license, which states that Wikipedia's material may be copied or remixed as long as you attribute Wikipedia (BY) and ensure that your remix is protected by the same license (SA). All Wikipedia edits made are licensed per this license (this applies to text, not media). However, if text from Wikipedia is copied between articles, the origin of the text must be attributed in some way, such as an edit summary. Sometimes, unattributed copyrighted material is added to Wikipedia, which should be removed as fast as possible (if the page contains no other substantial content, it must be nominated for deletion). As for images and media, they can be protected by any license, and if they are to be used on Wikipedia, they must either be licensed from the copyright owner for use on Wikipedia, or be required to provide a rationale that explains why they should be allowed to be used per fair use laws. Although all works created by employees of the U.S. government (as part of their duties) are public domain, some works published by the U.S. government may not be public domain if their copyrights are assigned by others.
A hoax is a Wikipedia article created with the intent to deceive its audience. Hoaxes have been added to Wikipedia in the past with the intent to see if Wikipedia can identify it. Generally, these hoaxes are marked for speedy deletion not long after being identified, but some more elaborate hoaxes have taken much longer to identify. Adding blatant hoaxes to Wikipedia is a form of vandalism, that can, like other forms of vandalism, can lead to blocks. Hoaxes on Wikipedia hurt its reputation and misleads its audience. Some hoaxes can lead to legal and/or physical consequences. However, hoaxes are allowed to be written about, as long as the articles about the hoaxes confirm that the hoax is indeed a hoax; that it is false. If a hoax is identified, it should be tagged as such using the {{hoax}} and PRODded, and if it is a blatant hoax, it can be speedy-deleted as pure vandalism. An attack page is a page created with the intent of harassing its subject. Another form of attack page is unsourced, wholly negative BLPs. Upon identification of an attack page, it must be tagged for speedy deletion per G10 and courtesy blanked. If an attack page is created on a notable subject, it should be deleted and replaced with a neutral version of the article, assuming that there is no neutral version to revert to. A page in any namespace can be tagged as an attack page. For instance, like I mentioned in the BLP section, creating a user page with a list of unsourced accusations about a controversial political figure would be a violation of this attack page policy.
Communications (Pt 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
It is very important to be civil when discussing with the creators of new pages (or anything, with anyone for that matter), especially newcomers. Be careful not to bite them. Do not nominate their pages for A1 or A3 speedy deletion moments after they are created. When discussing with them, it is very important to not assume that, if their edits could be considered vandalism, that they are trying to deliberately vandalize Wikipedia, it is more acceptable to assume good faith and/or assume that they are not aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Notifying editors of discussions is an important element of discussions. Notifying editors serves the purpose of helping establish consensus in the discussion. Some appropriate reasons to notify other editors include but are not limited to: notifying an editor of a discussion of their own actions, leaving a message on the talk page of the WikiProject(s) associated with an article being discussed, leaving a message on the talk page of articles affected by the discussions, and leaving a message on the user talk pages of associated editors. Some forms of inappropriate notification comprise what is called canvassing, which refers to notifying editors of discussions with the intent of influencing the outcome of the discussion. Some forms of canvassing include but are not limited to: spamming the user talk pages of uninvolved users with messages about the discussion, presenting the discussion in a non-neutral manner in order to persuade the user to believe a certain side, specifically targeting the user talk pages of users based on their affiliations and beliefs, and privately contacting uninvolved users with the intent of persuading them to vote a certain way in a discussion, unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages to communicate.
The purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss the content of an article in order to improve it. [1] Therefore, editors on talk pages should adhere to several guidelines. Firstly, you must clearly express what you're trying to say in your talk page messages. Furthermore, you should stay on topic and avoid discussions about Wikipedia itself on article talk pages (said meta discussions belong in Wikipedia talk namespace). You must also stay objective; the talk pages are not meant for pushing a point of view, they exist for the purpose of discussing the content of the article, which, by design, must adhere to a neutral point of view. The talk page of an article is the best place to discuss edits made to the main article, for instance, if your edit was reverted without an explanation, you could give an explanation why you oppose the edit being reverted, or, you could use the talk page to discuss another editor's edits to the same article. Finally, the talk page is the best place to make proposals and requests for comment [2]. It is also a good idea to confirm that an issue you will discuss on the talk page hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. Finally, please do not make personal attacks on an article talk page. Comment on the content of an edit, not the editor themselves.
Talk pages exist with the purpose of collaborating with others to create a better encyclopedia, so being positive is a necessity. Positive comments are needed in order to maintain civil discussion and properly maintain an encyclopedia. A term that refers to being positive on Wikipedia is "WikiLove". Some ways to show WikiLove are to not bite the newcomers, [3] "staying cool when the editing gets hot", assuming good faith (and assuming the assumption of good faith), following Wikipedia's policies, avoiding personal attacks, aiming for a neutral point of view, and forgiving and forgetting.
User warning templates are used to warn users of their actions. There are four levels of warnings, 1 (general note), which assumes good faith, 2 (caution), which does not assume any faith, 3 (warning), which assumes bad faith, and generally includes "please stop", and level 4 (final warning), which also assumes bad faith and is, well, the user's final warning. There is technically another level, which is generally reserved for extreme cases of vandalism: 4im (only warning). There are also single-issue notices and warnings, which do not have levels. Examples include {{Uw-3rr}}, {{Uw-attack}}, and {{Uw-canvass}}. User warning templates should always be substituted.
Deletion (Part 4)
Articles for deletion (or AfD) is a process by which editors can discuss if an article should be deleted, generally for seven days. If there is a clear consensus on if the article should be deleted or not, the consensus will determine the result. It should not be used in cases where the article either meets the criteria for speedy deletion, or where there is no objection expected, in which case proposed deletion should be used. Various possible outcomes include keeping, merging, redirecting, draftification/incubation, moving, userfication, or deletion. The debate is not a vote, it is a discussion in order to develop consensus ("votes" in these discussions are often called !votes, read as "not vote"). It is pointless to try to create fake accounts to increase the amount of votes for a certain side, and it is also forbidden; it is considered sockpuppetry. Also, if you oppose the deletion of an article, you can directly improve it, and if you are the nominator and the article is directly improved, you are expected to withdraw your nomination. If an editor does not withdraw their nominated, you can notify them on their talk page, but it is unlikely that they deliberately tried to avoid withdrawing their nomination, so it is best to assume good faith. After nominating an article for deletion, it is advised to transclude an article into a deletion sorting category, notify WikiProjects that may be interested in the article, and notify the primary contributors of the article. When a discussion is closed, in most cases, an administrator closes it, but, in some cases, a non-administrator can close it for a variety of reasons. In order to perform a non-admin closure, you must be a registered user. All closures, including non-admin closures, must adhere to consensus. For instance, you can't close a discussion as "draftify" when there is unanimous consensus to keep the article as is. When there is a close call, or there is no clear consensus, an administrator should close it. Also, non-admins are expected to limit their closes to decisions that they able to implement; i.e., don't mark a decision as "delete" when you are an autoconfirmed user. Finally, non-admins are expected to use the {{nac}}>> template to mark the fact that they are not an administrator. If the nominator withdraws their nomination, in order to perform a non-admin closure, you are expected to add a variation of the {{Afd top}} template to indicate the fact that the verdict was "speedy keep" due to the fact that the nominator withdrew their nomination, and that it was a non-admin closure. At the bottom of the page, add the {{Afd bottom}} template to indicate that it is over, and, on the actual article, remove the AfD template from the top, in order to indicate that the deletion discussion has ended.
Before nominating an article for deletion via AfD, you should
Proposed deletion or PROD is a process to nominate an article for uncontroversial deletion. The main reason for an article to be PROD'd is it if clearly should be deleted, and there is no objection expected to the deletion (if there is one expected, opt for articles for deletion instead), but does not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. BLP PROD, short for "proposed deletion of biographies of living people" is a related process that specifically applies to biographies of living people that have no sources, in any form, whatsoever (references, external links, or inline citations). Keep in mind that BLP PROD and regular PROD are separate processes, if an article is declined BLP PROD or does not meet the criteria for BLP PROD, it can be nominated for regular PROD.
Occasionally, an AfD discussion may receive almost no (in some cases, literally no) participation. However, if the consensus from the few AfD participants is to delete, and the AfD'd article hasn't been previously declined at PROD, then the closing administrator must treat the nomination as an expired PROD, which generally leads to what is called "soft deletion", in which the article is deleted, but it can be retrieved for any reason at WP:REFUND. In other cases, the AfD discussion may be relisted, closed as no consensus, or the article may be blanked and redirect to a related topic.
Speedy deletion is a special process by which an article can be nominated for deletion if and only if it meets the strict criteria for speedy deletion. It is generally used for the purpose of saving time spent on AfD discussions for articles with a very small chance of surviving one. Speedy deletion should not be used to an article that has recently survived an AfD discussion. Anyone can request speedy deletion, however, before doing so, it is a good idea to ensure that the article cannot be improved, merged, reverted to a previous revision, or handled via another alternative to deletion. Another case in which an article cannot be speedy deleted is if the article should be deleted to remove privacy breaches, in which case request oversight instead of nominating it for speedy deletion. In most cases, the creator of a page cannot remove a speedy deletion tag from the page, they should click the "contest this speedy deletion" button, but, if the article is nominated for deletion under G6 (technical deletions), G7 (author requests deletion), G8 (pages dependent on nonexistent pages), G13 (abandoned drafts), U1 (author requests deletion in user space). There are certain types of pages that must be tagged for deletion in special ways: pages that are protected, which should be tagged on their talk pages, templates, where the db template should be placed in a noinclude tag, modules, where the template must be placed within Module:Module wikitext, and CSS/JS pages, where the template should be placed within a comment. In some cases, you can nominate a page for speedy deletion after it survives a deletion discussion, if it meets any of the following speedy deletion criteria: G5 (creations by banned or blocked users), G6 (technical deletions), G7 (author requests deletion) G8 (pages dependent on nonexistent pages), G9 (office actions), G12 (copyright violations), G13 (abandoned drafts), A2 (foreign language articles on other wikis), A5 (transwikied pages), F8 (images which are on Wikimedia Commons), F9 (copyright infringement of files), or U1 (author requests deletion in userspace). Some notable criteria for speedy deletion are G1 (patent nonsense), which refers to pages whose content is completely incoherent, G2 (test pages), whose content exists for testing Wikipedia, G3 (pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes), note this only applies to blatant hoaxes, G9 (office actions), which apply to when the Wikimedia Foundation speedily deletes a page, G10 (attack pages), G11 (unambiguous advertising), G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement), A1 (no context), for very short articles which do not have sufficient context needed to identify the subject, A3 (no content), not to be confused with no context, this is for pages that have no content whatsoever, or whose content is not an actual article, for instance, an article that is only a stub template or only an external link could be A3'd, A7 (no indication of importance; people, specific animals, non-educational organizations, web content, events), where "indication of importance" refers to if the content of the article explains why the subject of the article is important; keep in mind that this does not mean notability, A9 (no indication of importance; musical recordings), A11 (obviously invented), see WP:MADEUPONEDAY, and my personal favorite criterion: U5 (blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host). Some "non-criteria"; common reasons for speedy deletion that are not actually able to justify speedy deletion, are violations of what Wikipedia is not, non-blatant hoaxes, original research, articles about non-notable subjects, articles with no indication of importance that do not meet A7, A9, or A11, and deletions reasons that are based on essays, for instance, you cannot nominate one of Wikipedia's most important policies for deletion per Wikipedia:Reduce confusion by following policy[1].
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
The purpose of tagging pages is in order to warn readers of potential issues with the article, such as their structure, or their sourcing, or even their tone. The term "tag" primarily refers to cleanup templates, which are templates added to an article to notify readers about issues, and to notify editors that the article should be fixed. Adding tags to an article where the issue is not obvious is often referred to as "drive-by tagging", especially when done by editors who have not previously been involved in the article's development. In case you're tagging an issue related to a controversial or complicated issue, such as neutral point of view, you should provide a reason for the addition of the tag. An editor without a conflict of interest may remove a tag from an article if the supposed problem does not appear to exist and the talk page of the article does not have a complaint regarding the issue. In most non-obvious cases (such as removing a "current election" template from an election that ended several weeks ago), it is best for an editor removing the tag to add a note on the talk page of the artticle, and to describe the reasoning for the removal in the edit summary for the removal. Inline sourcing or verifiability-related tags should not be removed if the statement the tag is attached to is "challenged or likely to be challenged", per the verifiability policy. If the editor who placed the tag makes a complaint on the talk page, an editor seeking to remove the tag should, instead of boldly removing the tag, should discuss with the original creator of the tag on the talk page about if the tag should be removed or not. If there is a disagreement over if the tag should be removed or not, then the discussion should continue in order to establish consensus. Sometimes, the placement of a tag may cause a dispute. Sometimes, an editor may add a tag to an article in bad faith, or remove one for the same reason. Placing too many tags on an article is often referred to as "tag-bombing", which can discourage newcomers. The addition of tags, itself, does not help Wikipedia, it is more asking for someone else to help the article for you. Generally, an article should not have more than three tabs, and it is best to reserve the tags for the most serious and obvious problems before the more obscure problems. It is pointless to add multiple tags with the same (or similar) meanings (for instance: don't add {{Dead end}} and {{Underlinked}} to the same page at the same time) [1] It is best to use specific tags over using general tags, and if there is no specific tag to be used, just use the {{cleanup}} tag and, in an edit summary or comment, describe the specific problem to be addressed.
WP:CAT - The purpose of categories is to make it easier for Wikipedians to navigate through related articles. There are multiples ways to do this, along with categories there are navigation templates (navboxes) and lists. Several naming conventions apply, such as that abbreviations should not be used in category titles, that titles should not contain the word "notable", that categories made by WikiProjects must contain the term "WikiProject" in the title, and that categories used for Wikipedia administration should contain the word Wikipedia if necessary to avoid confusion with other categories. Once you have determined an appropriate title and parent category, you can create the category, and you do so by adding an article to the category, which should show up as a red link. Then click on the red link to create the category. A category should have text that explains exactly what type of pages should be placed in it and can contain links to other articles and/or categories. All articles should be categorized in some way (specifically articles, not redirects, talk pages, or user pages). An article in a category should be placed in the most specific and accurate category. For instance, an article for a very specific US town should not be added to the category for places in general, but the category for US towns. Categorization of articles must be verifiable; there should be a verifiable reason such as a source (in the article not the category itself, categories cannot contain sources). Generally, reliable sources must consistently demonstrate that the subject of an article has a certain characteristic and therefore should be categorized in a certain way. An article should never maintain itself in a red-linked category; the category should either be created or the article should be removed from the category. Categories should be based on the content of the article rather than the type of article. Categories that are directly about the subject of an article are called eponymous categories, and the article mentioned must be the main article of the eponymous category. Files and images can also be categorized, often in a larger category, but are usually seperated from the actual articles, or added to a subcategory specifically for files. There are two types of categories (based on who uses them): administrative and content. Administrative categories exist for the purpose of editors to categorize articles based on their states or cleanup templates they have. Content categories contain articles with the intent of helping readers categorize pages. User pages do not belong in most categories, however there are some "user categories" which are subcategories of Category:Wikipedians. Some templates (such as the Twinkle userbox on my user page) adds transcluded pages to a category. It is discouraged to add articles to administrative categories instead of their talk pages, but if actual articles are to be added to these categories, then they should be hidden using the template {{Wikipedia category|hidden=yes}}. Sometimes "sort keys" are used to change the order of articles in categories, such as to change whether or not diacritics affect the order of articles, leading articles ("The Beatles" would be under B instead of T), and certain punctuation marks (apostrophes, hyphens and periods). Sometimes, Greek letters may be used in order to add articles after the main list, for instance sigma refers to stubs, beta refers to books, delta refers to documention for templates, and omega is for WikiProjects. There are two types of categories based on the content of them: topic and set. Topic categories are for pages on general topics, while set categories are for, well, sets. Occasionally categories may be within other categories (subcategorization), if the contents of a subcategory also logically belong in a parent category. Some subcategories are the children of multiple parent categories. A category can never be a subcategory of its own subcategory. Some categories consist entirely of subcategories for ease of use (this is called diffusing). Some subcategories do not exist for the purpose of diffusing, and these categories should not logically be placed in both their parent category and the subcategory. Question 1: How can categorization maintain a neutral point of view?
Question 2: Why is it discouraged to add actual articles to administrative categories?
|