Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic Canada topics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic Canada topics[edit]

All the content of this article is covered elsewhere in particular the main Canada article and articles linked therefrom. A pointless list that adds nothing to WP. ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a basic topics list, so it should be kept under the policy. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that all basic topic lists that are about notable subjects are articles that don't fail the deletion policy. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the basic topic lists comply with WP:LISTS, and this list falls within the scope of the Lists of basic topics and though it is still under construction, is a valuable addition to that set of lists. The Transhumanist 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was just created today, and I think the article creator should be given some time to develop it. The similar List of basic United States topics is an excellent navigational tool, which is good for Wikipedia users who do not wish to read prose. Bláthnaid 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:LISTS. Also keep in mind this was made, like, today. Give it time before you go crazy on it. Celarnor (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of basic United States topics is an excellent precedent for a navigational list. AndyJones (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not expressing one view or the other on this, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should be noted when comparing this article with others. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come off it. Saying that this artice should be kept because it has the ability to develop into an equivalent of another good article is a perfectly valid argument, bearing no resemblance in common sense or logic to the argument criticised at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. AndyJones (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fine looking article but it duplicates the Canada article which should present the main topic in a readable way. I also worry that there will be edit warring over the definition of basic - who decides what makes the cut? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously expect the main Canada page to have everything Canada-related linked to it, can you? An article discussing Canada isn't going to be anywhere near as effective at presenting a list of Canadian topics as, well, a list of Canadian topics. Deleting pages like this marginalize WP and reduce it's effectiveness at being a cross-linked encyclopedia. As to the basic, I realize this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have a crap ton of list of basic (topic) lists. They provide an excellent place to go to start looking for information regarding that topic, and it's terrible that they're getting marginalized and AfD'd like this. Celarnor (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do expect the Canada article to do a proper job of introducing the country since that is the article's purpose. This is just what I would call a format-fork - presenting the same information in a different format. It seems to be intended for those who don't like prose, i.e. people who can't read too well. But Wikipedia is not the Book of Lists. And I looked at the US equivalent which is supposedly the model. I don't care for that either and have tagged it accordingly. In particular, the determination of basic topic seems quite subjective and I find that the current version is far from the choice that I would make. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list, and complies with the purposes, forms, and functions of lists on Wikipedia. See WP:LISTS. By their very nature, a great many of the Lists of topics and Lists of basic topics share the same scope as the articles on Wikipedia - that's to be expected since they serve as tables of contents. By the way, there have been no edit wars on any of the lists of basic topics (that I'm aware of), so your fears have not materialized in the two years they've been around. The talk pages of these lists have proven sufficient to work out the nature of "basic" for each respective subject. The basic topics lists are part of Wikipedia's table of contents system - they aren't intended for people who can't read too well, they are intended to help people find what they want to read about faster. They also assist those who can read fast read even faster, by providing an outline of each subject. They are great for browsing, and make it easier to find topics than tediously scanning prose for the links buried within it. They are meant to supplement and complement articles, and they do that very well. The Transhumanist 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page for the US version didn't exist until I created it just now. If there seems to be little strife, it may be because most readers, like me, never heard of these lists before. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These lists are quite common. If you go to Portal:Contents, you'll notice that the whole structure of Wikipedia is based on them. Celarnor (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with above. Putting everything about one subject on a single page in prose isn't going to work. Somewhere along the line, you're going to have to have a list. Since List_of_Canada-related_topics contains more internal links than Canada, it fails at being a 'format fork'; it doesn't contain as much information. Not having them is still a bad idea. You have an index in a traditional encyclopedia; if you looked in the index under Canada, you would probably find Geography of Canada, Economy of Canada, etc; this is our equivalent of that. Celarnor (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a "list of basic topics", fits the purposes of that project and is consistent with the rest of the lists in that set (see Lists of basic topics), and it isn't even finished yet. It's the formatting and scope which are the key elements of a list of basic topics, and the basis of the value they add to WP. All the lists in that set reiterate material in the encyclopedia. That's totally normal for these lists. And this list isn't even finished yet. If it isn't allowed to be created, it will create a hole in the topic coverage of Lists of basic topics. The Transhumanist 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The list was made with the standard subheading skeleton which most lists of basic topics use. I've created a new skeleton which fits countries better, and have inserted it into this list. The list is still under construction, but is shaping up nicely as a basic topics list. The Transhumanist 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content fork. We have categories for such things. Biruitorul (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories do not replace lists. Nor do lists replace categories. They both have their uses, and both should be kept. See WP:CLN for more information regarding their differences and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Celarnor (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand this delete !vote. I don't see how a category could ever be better than this list already is. AndyJones (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, who defines "basic"? Biruitorul (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same people who who define it in any other "List of basic (subject) topics". The Wikipedia community, although basic is fairly self-evident. For the most part, they are links to articles that are linked to at the begenning of each section of the article of their subject: culture of Canada, economy of Canada, government, military, etc. These are places someone goes to when they want to start reading about a topic; for example, I spent a lot of time a while back going through List of basic topics in classical studies; like this, the article didn't include all of the information maintained in the article, which is of course understandable; it's much more difficult to maintain an article than it is a list. However, unlike a category, it's easy to read by humans, and is organized better, so it's better for navigation. Again, going to Portal:Contents and List of basic topics, you'll see that the entire organization of Wikipedia is dependent on these, and removing them would make life difficult for a lot of readers, as well as forcing editors to cram a considerable amount of extra content into articles that would better be placed in a list. Celarnor (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken from WP:BT. Each entry below is a list of fundamental concepts in its respective subject area. These lists are intended to help the beginner become familiar with each subject. For more comprehensive lists on these subjects, see Lists of topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything on the list is on Canada. So it is basically redundant and pointless. The same goes to List of basic United States topics. Chris! _ct 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada only links to around ~30 of the ~50 articles present in List of basic Canada topics. In order for it to be redundant, they would have to be identical. Celarnor (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A similar AfD has been brought up. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Macintosh software (2nd nomination). Celarnor (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list is still under construction. It's counter-productive to nominate a list for deletion when it isn't even completed yet - by doing this you're pressuring list builders into completing drafts of lists before they post them to article space, the very place where others who may wish to collaborate would most likely find them and help out. Collaboration is one of the main benefits of having a wiki in the first place, and AfD's like this defeat that purpose. Chris's argument above was that the list is redundant in that it only includes links that are in the Canada article. Well, Chris was mistaken, as the list already included coverage that wasn't included in the article at the time the AfD nomination was made, the list has more non-redundant links now than it did then, and the list continues to diverge with the Canada article as the list is being further developed. But redundancy is totally irrelevant here. This is a list, not a paragraph-based article. And it totally conforms to Wikipedia's guideline on lists. Lists serve as outlines of knowledge and as tables of contents. Tables of contents are by their very nature redundant in scope with the material they provide easier access to! In addition to this, this table of contents is part of a larger table of contents system - the Lists of basic topics. (See Wikipedia:Contents for more information about the overall table of contents system). By deleting part of the system, you in effect cripple it, forcing an edict that Wikipedia's basic table of contents can't cover Canada. That makes no sense. Canada is a fundamental subject, and it should be covered in Wikipedia's tables of contents systems. The issue boils down to whether we should have a table of contents or not, and if that is the case, the entire set of Lists of basic topics should be nominated for deletion, not just a piece of it. If a piece of the table of contents system is to be deleted, without deleting the whole thing, it should be shown how the piece is inadequate to be a part of the whole. Nobody has done that here. None of the deletion supporters above have explained why we shouldn't have a basic table of contents on Canada. Nor have any of them presented justification for creating a blatant hole in the Lists of basic topics table of contents system. The Transhumanist 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article is as you said a part of the Wikipedia table of content system, then could you explain to me why we need the article List of Canada-related topics? The thing I want to point out is that we don't need a set of basic topics on countries because we already have a set of countries-related topics under Lists of country-related topics. While the list we are discussing here is different, it essentially serves the same purpose as List of Canada-related topics. We don't need multiple lists of the same subject. Chris!_ct 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: It's an entirely different thing altogether. There is the List of topics structure, and there is the List of basic topics structure. The lists of basic foo topic lists which can be found under WP:BT, is a list of fundamental topics without the all-inclusiveness of their counterpart, The "list of foo topics" lists satisfy the human-readable equivalent of a category. They are distinct entities. For example, the List of science topics includes everything that is scientific. There, you can find things like Timeline of stellar astronomy, List of genera in Faboideae, and other 'advanced' topics. In the List of basic science topics, you'll find a smaller and more basic list of scientific topics, which contains only Astronomy and Botany. The same is true for the country-related ones. You aren't going to find something like The Manhattan Project in the list of basic topics, but you'll find it in the list of United States topics. Instead, you might find a link to a list of scientific programs in the United States. I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion that people are having regarding the distinction between the two types of lists. Celarnor (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The list has undergone considerable development since it was nominated for deletion. It is intended as a table of contents of material on Wikipedia related to Canada. Please let me know how it can be improved. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. In light of the discussion above and the excellent work done by The Transhumanist I hereby withdraw the AfD nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.