Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:The Cantos
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The decision was to delete the category. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page.
Material more suited for a list or incorporated into an article. This is a very bad precedent as there is potentially no limit to which works of literature could have a category to identify "articles of interest to readers and students" of that work. older≠wiser 14:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- As the creator of this category, I obviously want to keep it; more generally, I fail to understand the reason for the listing. By the same logic, there is potentially no limit to the number of works of literature that might have articles written about them, so we should also forbid the practice of writing such articles. I would also argue that The Cantos is one of those works of literature most likely to benefit from this kind of treatment because of its demands on the reader's knowledge of a wide range of cultural references. No single article could contain all the links required. Believe me, I know from the work I've done on the main article to date. Potentially, this category could become the best online resource for students of the work anywhere. Filiocht 15:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree that a list is a much better choice in this situation. I don't think that information that is not important enough to make it into the text of the article deserves the prominence of a category. - SimonP
- Delete. The Category is clearly much to vague like Bkonrad says, nearly limitless.--TheGrza 21:32, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Make a list. Categories are to go from an instance to other instances of a group, but a non-Pound student is never ever going to care that two random articles have the literary relationship. As someone who has created some of WP's monster lists, 2,000 entries and up, I can say there's no danger of the list of cultural references in The Cantos being too large. Lists also have the advantage that they can be annotated, for instance to note briefly where and why each item is on the list; no way to make categories do that. Stan 22:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- While I disagree profoundly with the arguments put forward here, I've gone ahead and created the list anyway. Whi is a near limitless list OK but a category isn't? Filiocht 09:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Because categorization modifies all the articles, and because the general consensus on categorization requires a strong relationship, otherwise there's nothing to prevent every article from being added to every category ("everything is related", right?), thus rendering the category system useless. The final deal-killer is that there isn't really any use for the category; for instance, Category:Plant families helped find some dups and misnamed articles, because it shows articles by real names rather through redirects or piping, which a list can't be relied on to do. In the case of Category:The Cantos, I thought about it a while, couldn't come up with any purpose like that. Stan 17:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- While I disagree profoundly with the arguments put forward here, I've gone ahead and created the list anyway. Whi is a near limitless list OK but a category isn't? Filiocht 09:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Sets bad precedent. There are articles with names like List of cultural references in Dead Like Me. It would be overwhelming if those lists all became categories. -Willmcw 22:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Use the list. (1) The list is easier to maintain; (2) The list can be annotated, sorted, split into sections etc; (3) The categories that an article belongs to are a scarce resource and should be reserved for the two or three most important attributes of the subject. Gdr 12:13, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)