- Category:Articles needing an infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 1#Category:Articles needing an infobox for the CfD of this and its subcategories. I don't think that this CfD had enough discussion before closing as all pages involved were not notified during the discussion. I disagree with the nominator's/closer's rationale and argument, which is essentially that the categories being named in the format as "X articles needing infoboxes" is presumptive and no one should be making a determination of what an article needs. I find the change to "X articles without infoboxes" unnecessary and incorrect, as there are articles that are without infoboxes but don't need them. The common usage of these categories comes from WikiProject templates, where WikiProject members use these categories as internal mechanisms, used by other members to know what the WikiProject has determined the articles need. On the contrary to the nominator's rationale, I propose that standard usage of infoboxes in many, many articles represents a consensus that most articles tagged by WikiProjects as needing an infobox do indeed need one and aren't just without one. It is similar in nature to that of Category:Articles needing attention and its subcats. Rkitko (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to be clear, I don't disagree with the singular vs. plural deduction from the CfD, just the rewording from needs/needing to without. --Rkitko (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, and this gets overturned, then all the newly renamed categories could easily be transferred into their "needing" equivalent. I'm not saying that's what I'd do, but now they're all named similarly and so they'd only need a one-word change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: All these categories have finished transferring their content. So if any get relisted, this should be done should be in the format of "[[:Category: (X) articles without infoboxes]] to [[:Category:(X) articles needing infoboxes]]".--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. Many of the categories in question still have CfD templates on them, and none of the changes that were aggreed upon in the closure appear to have happened. Category:Articles needing infoboxes links to the deleted category that it was supposed to be replacing, as well. I doubt the CfD was closed properly. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did happen to interrupt the editor doing all the work mid-way, so I assume that's the reason it's not complete. I have a feeling that User:Mike Selinker would have finished and cleaned them all up soon. Rkitko (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've finished all the template changes but it takes a while for the talk pages to finish processing. When they're done, the original categories will be deleted, as some already have been. (I did miss the category redirect, though. Thanks for catching that.) So it is technically still in process, but no manual work remains to be done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's rationale. There was complete unanimity for a change from "needing" to "without," and changing from the domains of the WikiProjects to the general topics (e.g., "WikiProject Schools articles" to "School articles"), as the projects do not own the articles. However, I can see that presuming that all the subcategories should change in the same way (not just the ones listed in the nomination) may have been overstepping. I expect almost all would pass on their own, but if there are some that people see as outliers to this principle, then I don't object to relisting those.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see four users participating in the discussion for a period of only three days (once the idea of "needing" -> "without" began) before it was closed. The section title did not indicate that the decision would affect all of the myriad subcategories, and neither did the initial discussion lean that way. The controversy comes on the one hand from a sudden shift in direction of the CfD, and on the other hand from the renaming/deletion of categories that were never put up for discussion. Those latter changes were made out of process, and should be restored regardless of the outcome of this review. They can then be put up for CfD, if that is deemed appropriate. We should not have to relist items that never underwent the CfD process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uphold There is no requirement at Cfd that Projects are notified. I think, as Mike says, a middle course could perhaps be struck here, limiting the decision to those categories actually listed this time, with a further debate on the others. I understand what Rkitko is saying, but these days (thanks to the dreaded betacommandbot), most articles seem to be in multiple categories, and there are very often different views between the projects as to whether infoboxes are desirable, or which infobox is desirable. For example, the Biography project plasters all articles with "infobox needed" (meaning theirs), when for artists the Visual arts Project (to which the writing editors nearly always belong), do not support an automatic infobox, & often prefer a painting infobox to a biography infobox (partly because the artist infoboxes get filled in very inaccurately by bio people, and take up valuable picture space). There are many similar conflicts, so the appearance of prescriptiveness is best avoided. Very few projects are in fact so cohesive and organised that their views in this matter should be encouraged to override the view of the writing editors of the article anyway - Project Military history is perhaps the only one I can think of in this class. I wonder how many projects have actually taken a collective decision to use infoboxes anyway - I suspect often one or two people create it & then just go with it if no-one objects. I see Rkitko is from the science side, & I appreciate their boxes often seem much better than humanities ones. But at the end of the day, if you want to know what boxes are missing, either wording does the job fine. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your thoughts! I can see the rationale for some projects and agree it might be appropriate to be more neutral for some as in the given example. On the other side, in all my time here I have only bumped into one user who has expressed disdain for the Tree of Life infobox (i.e. the taxobox). I haven't taken a complete consensus of all WP:TOL subprojects, but all of them seem to have no problem with the taxobox and they rarely overlap with other project like you describe - or if they do overlap, such as with a geographic-related WikiProject, there is no appropriate infobox that those WikiProjects would desire to put in place of the taxobox. Taxoboxes are pretty much standard on any TOL article, except for things such as Illiciales, where the taxon is pretty much no longer used and a page is only needed to describe it's treatment in the many systems that exist. So perhaps what I'm getting at here is at least the "needing taxobox" categories should be discussed in more length. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - The revised name is wholly inappropriate for TOL articles. There are many, many organism articles that have no taxobox and shouldn't. For example, the Fish article has no infobox, but it should not have a Taxobox because it is not a taxon. The same is true of Bryophyte, Algae, Marine mammal and countless other organism articles. These pages are not taxa, and so do not have a Taxobox as a result. However, there is also a desire on the part of all the various TOL groups to include taxoboxes on articles that are about taxa (formally recognized groups), as well as infoboxes on articles about important strains and cultivars. When these pages lack such a box, it is important that they receive one. Unfortunately, with the newly revised category names (e.g. Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes), the category name is nonsensical and useless to the project using it. There are many, many articles within the scope of WP:PLANTS that have no taxobox and never will. The plant physiology article will not (and should not) have a taxobox; it is a discipline, not a taxon. Likewise, the Leaf article should not have a taxobox, and neither should Algae, Bryophyte, Fish, etc. For all the TOL Wikiprojects, there is a clearly defined, and very important, distinction between articles that should have taxoboxes and articles that should not have taxoboxes. Whether an article is simply without such a taxobox is irrelevant and useless information. What is important is locating the articles that need such a box. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm definitely hearing strong reasons why the taxobox categories should not be treated the same way as the infobox categories, and so as the closer, I would support reverting those. I didn't see any difference before, but I'm starting to now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Encycolpetey isn't making sense to me. The previous names were "needing", the new name is "without". If they didn't "need" infoboxes, what were these articles doing in the category in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They weren't in there. The old category name made it clear that such articles should not be tagged for the category unless they needed a taxobox. The new category name doesn't make this necessary distinction. People will be tagging articles because they are without a Taxobox, rather than because they need them. In other words, it is easier to explain to someone with, "No, that article shouldn't be in the category because it doesn't need a taxobox," than it is to explain with, "No, that article shouldn't be in the category, even though the category name implies that it should be in the category because it is without a taxobox; we only want articles in the category that need a taxobox, despitre the name." --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, your lot are obviouly more thoughtful than the Bio folk, who assume everything without a box needs one. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn ToL related categories. Per the information stated by others in this DR. Additionally (although a minor argument), pluralizing the "taxoboxes" makes the category even more absurd, as each taxon that does need a taxobox only ever needs one. One of the original CfD nominator's arguments was that often an article needs more than one infobox. However, by definition each taxon has a single taxobox. If it isn't a taxon, it doesn't need a taxobox. While I agree with the intent of the original CfD on infoboxes, it was FAR too reaching in changing taxoboxes as well. Justin chat 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am relatively sympathetic to this, but note none of these were in the original nomination, & are only affected by the close proposal to rename all such articles this way. Maybe if Mike amends his close to exclude those, referring here, we can close this. Is anybody arguing against the close in respect of non-TOL articles? Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to amend the close to "re-exclude" the taxobox-related categories, now that I get that they're not just oddly-named infoboxes. I think we're all agreeing that should be done. (Though I'd still keep the plural since it's "Articles" that need many, not "An article" that needs one.) As Johnbod suggests, if that happens, does this nomination close early?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the only issue I have, and I can live with the pluralizing. Seems to me the only argument is for taxoboxes so I would agree to an early close if taxobox cats are excluded from the original nom. Justin chat 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally, we would go back to singular for the taxobox categories, since your point stands that each article requires only one taxobox, regardless of whether or not it is a plural "articles" in the category title. So we would move from Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes to Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox (even though the original category was Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes) and from Category:Cultivar articles without infoboxes back to Category:Plant articles needing a cultivar infobox. The latter makes sense in that the title relates it to WP:PLANTS and that cultivars are only plants. It was more descriptive to begin with. I'm still not convinced that all the non-TOL categories had to be changed to "without" from "needing". The closer's rationale is that the WikiProjects don't own the articles. They do, however, maintain those talk page categories and it is right and fair for WikiProjects to determine what the articles they edit need, just like any other maintenance category and like the parallel Category:Articles needing attention. Other objections were that some WikiProjects and editors do not prefer to have infoboxes, which creates problems where those projects intersect (such as the arts/biography intersection noted in the CfD). Why not just change the few where this problem is noted, or work it out between those projects to come to a consensus on what the articles need? Rkitko (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it isn't "a few" at all! - I would say most of the 5,000 + articles I have edited (apparently) are, or potentially could be, covered by many projects. You have national projects (often several), religious/denomination projects (ditto), history projects (ditto), the Biography project and then the specialist projects. I think ToL-type situations are the exception not the rule. Look at Talk:Albrecht Dürer or Talk:Book of Kells - 5 project tags each, to which more could easily be added. Talk:Crusades has 7. Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the issue of ToL categories should be taken to WP:TOL? In reality, although not required, this is where the issue should have started, but it appears the nom didn't intend for the effects that were caused as a result. If no one does it today, tomorrow I'll throw together a list of WP:TOL related categories and move the discussion there. For the purpose of this DR, for the sake of making this less complicated, I will change my vote from Overturn ToL related categories, to Overturn and relist, since I still feel the issue is VERY widespread, and there simply wasn't enough input on the issue. Justin chat 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closure appears to reflect the consensus of the discussion. This is not the place to introduce a variation that might be better for a closed discussion. If there is a better name, then nominate the categories and have a normal discussion. The work to change is minimal since the cat is added by a template, as I recall, and changes to templates or by a bot are easy. In any case, the approved change fixes existing naming issues and should be allowed to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After 3 opinions were issued, the proposed renaming changed from "needing" to "without". Given that the changes that occurred after the close weren't the same as the proposed changes and the actual changes occurred on categories outside of the proposed changes (taxobox articles in addition to infobox articles) this was by definition, an improper close. Had the CfD notices occurred on at least one taxobox category, it's unlikely it would have ever made it through CfD.
- While the existing change may fix some problems, the ends don't justify the means. If we don't overturn closes that have a far broader brush than proposed (actually CfDing categories that aren't even mentioned), then what's the purpose of having a deletion review at all? Justin chat 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
