Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Category use and misuse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Articlenone
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyFiddle Faddle
Parties involvedUser talk:Athenaeum
Mediator(s)The prophet wizard of the crayon cake








Mediation Case: 2006-07-24 Category use and misuse[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
User talk:Athenaeum#Removal of King George's Field category from places and on all the articles that are not lists where the category category:King George's Field was removed. An example page is Amersham, and the remainder may be found from any of the lists in the category in question.
To an extent on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:King_George.27s_Field_to_Category:King_George.27s_Fields where User:Athenaeum has proposed the category for renaming and I have objected
Who's involved?
User:Athenaeum
User:Timtrent (me)
What's going on?
Background:
I am currently, and sporadically, adding the entire list of the 471 King George's Fields in the united kingdom and the few others worldwide to Wikipedia as specialist lists. Every time I have added a field I have also added the disputed category to the article about the place itself, based upon my interpretation of Wikipedia:Category#About_lists_and_categories. It says: "Wikipedia includes a number of lists, but it is difficult to keep these lists complete and up-to-date, and to maintain connections between elements of a list and articles about those elements. Additionally, scaling aspects of the encyclopedia such as browsing, watchlists, and Recent Changes can be improved by identifying the articles with categories."
I interpret this to mean that lists and categories coexist peacefully, and that, while a list is designed to list "things" such as King George's Fields, and where to find them, the Category is used to cross reference articles where the "thing" exists, even (and this is the point) when the thing so categorised is a subset of the article placed in the category.
Dispute
User:Athenaeum takes a different view, as expressed on User talk:Athenaeum#Removal of King George's Field category from places, that a category should reflect the entirety of the article. Accordingly all such categorisation has been removed from some 50 or more pages.
As the talk page where I have attempted to resolve this shows, I have tried very hard to enter into a dialogue in order to seek to resolves this difference of opinion. To my surprise I have been met by an impasse, and the statement that "If you restore the category tags I will remove them again."
My own talk page shows that I took advice last night on the best way to proceed in order to resolve this, and discussed it on IRC as invited there.
At present User:Athenaeum and I seem unable to enter into any discussion, and the dispute is thus incapable of "local resolution". I am not about to enter into an edit war, and need another pair of eyes or more on the interpretation of categorisation, either in general or for these particular articles.
What would you like to change about that?
Ideally I would like to reach simple agreement with User:Athenaeum by discussion. Recognising that this has so far been rejected out of hand I will be content that this is resolved by the consensus of the community over categorisation. I am content to be wrong if I can be shown where I am wrong and can be led to understand where I am mistaken.
If consensus is that my interpretation is correct I would like the disputed category replaced on all such pages. It's a great deal of work done manually, and my preference would be for the remover to replace the category.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
Open resolution is perfectly fine. I see this as editors' actions being subject to community scrutiny, and feel it may be as public or as private as MEDCAB decides

Mediator response[edit]

  • Recuse As I suggested MedCab as a dispute resolution method to this user, I'm recusing myself from the case. Any other mediator is welcome to accept it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adopting this case as my own. Feel free to assist if you wish. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebodies taking a little wikibreak... so this case is currently frozen in time. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back and hoping to resolve this issue. But where has the mediation discussion gone? Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Mediator: The other user seems to have left wikipedia or has stated that they will not make any further edits. There has been a fairly nasty outpouring of epithets on an Admin's talk page which that admin has reverted. I think we can now close this case because there is nothing to mediate. Good editing will prevail as will consensus, as it was always going to. I am grateful for MedCab's and your help. Fiddle Faddle 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Compromise is out of the question. Or to look at it another way, what I have done is a compromise. No-one has supported him on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and two people want his category deleted altogether. His position is eccentric and totally out of line with normal categorisation practice. He is just wasting people's time. Athenaeum 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look at this issue, and while I don't have time to completely dig into it, the expected organizational structure in my opinon should be as follows: Since there are individual articles for the field on a per-county basis (e.g. List of King George V Playing Fields (Lancashire)), they should all be categorized into Category:King George's Fields (as they already are) and also each individually into the existing categories for the respective county (Category:Lancashire in this example). Those county categories already have "List of something in County" articles, so the King George V lists make sense to be placed there too. I certainly would not put Lancashire into a category of "places with a King George V field" - that is not an expected way of navigating through Wikipedia, in my opinion. While on this topic, I would also rename the articles to be like List of King George V Playing Fields in Lancashire (unless "playing fields" is not part of the proper noun name, then use "playing fields" in lowercase.) Hope this helps. Andrwsc 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we can reach a consensus I am open to all suggestions. "Playing Field" is not in the proper name of the memorial, but that is a minor issue and can be determined last. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The extra category of the county sits well, I think. So I will move ahead with that in any case. Fiddle Faddle 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not what you mean by "extra category of the county". I'm not suggesting that any more categories are created, just the the existing and future per-county list articles get categorized in existing county categories. Are you planning on creating an individual article for each field, or leave it with an article per county? Andrwsc 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I mean your Lancashire example. Fields per se are separate and do not warrnat an article each because they are just special areas of land having the same (or similar) attributes to each other. Where the field location also has an article I am adding one line to each under Sport and Recreation that it has a field as a matter of course. It was the categorisation of those articles that caused this whole discussion. Well that caused the impasse I am seeking to solve at least :). Fiddle Faddle 23:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Fiddle Faddle does not understand that categories are based on defining characteristics of places. So far the only two people who have disagreed with me on the renaming of the category have called for the county by county lists to be merged and the category to be deleted, ie they are further away from his position than I am! There is no question of accepting his position or meeting him half way. Do we want every town in England in hundreds of categories on the lines of Category:towns with a football league ground, Category:Towns with a Roman Catholic Church, category:Towns with a John Lewis department store (all 3 of them more important attributes than possession of a King George's Field) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Of course not! And virtually everyone understands that, so it is not done.
I am not going to waste any more time on this as Fiddle Faddle's position is simply eccentric and shows his lack of understanding of Wikipedia's conventions. Help him to understand that, and you will have done something useful, but there is nothing to mediate. He has already upset me and wasted a good deal of my time, and if I continue to be harassed about this nonsense I will simply quit Wikipedia. Athenaeum 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unhappily, and despite being warned against rudeness by the mediator, Athenaeum has continually resorted to personal abuse and attacks in the mediation which is being attempted at the mediator's talk page. This does seem to reinforce the position that Athenaeum has taken that no discussion will be entered into. Fiddle Faddle 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me this seems a practical and workable solution. I wish I had thought of it, but was too close to the task to see the wood for the trees. I do not disagree that the notability is marginal, I simply argue that it is on the "notable side of marginal" because this memorial is probably the largest memorial the UK has ever had in terms of scope of the nation (and indeed some non UK nations, too). It is a nationwide memorial to one man, and is, I believe, unique in the way a statue (for example) is not. I think it would probably be unwise for me to "take a flyer" and run with it without some sort of consensus, though. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For heavens sake did you give a single second's thought to that? How many such categories do you think the average large city would be in. That isn't the way categorisation is done. If you don't understand categorisation you shouldn't have intervened. This whole discussion is a bad joke. Just end it now for heaven's sake. Athenaeum 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. so is there any sort of conflict for me to mediate at the moment? If not, I'll just close the case, and ask you to give me a ring if something pops up.. otherwise we'll keep the case open. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you shouls draw the other party's attention to this potential solution? Fiddle Faddle 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a meaningless analogy as "fairtrade settlement" is a label applied to the whole town, whereas a field is just a tiny part of of the town. I might still nominate the fairtrade category for deletion though, as it is not a defining characteristic. Athenaeum 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just close this nonsense down to avoid wasting any more time. Athenaeum 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Athenaeum, try to be more polite. Phrases like 'nonsense' and a 'waste of time' seem to me to be expressions of anger and are likely to provoke rather than persuade. Phrases like 'If you restore the category tags I will remove them again' are clear threats. bobblewik 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Category_use_and_misuse&oldid=1142595678"