I guess I am taking things for granted too fast... Any recent US president has way too many categories. They are merely the example symptoms of the problem.
Getting rid of some of these excess categories is something hard to do. Of course this isn't a battle, but people are often emotionally motivated on a number of topics and they sometimes create categories for that end. Especially if a person does not understands the spirit of NPOV, we end up having categories with not very objective titles and a subjective inclusion criteria.
An average cfd discussions get very little attention unless it is on a controversial issue. In your average cfd on a potentially controversial issue, people tend to vote based on their belief system and not based on stuff like usefulness/objectivity/subjectivity of the inclusion criteria of the category in question. For example, although a word to avoid, [[Category:Terrorists by nationality]] has been around for quite sometime.
- Cool Cat
On 2/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The general principle of avoiding excessive categories is sound. The art is in getting cleaning up the excesses without upsetting a lot of people, and causing a lot of flame wars. Patience can be your friend.
Please demonstrate some harm caused by having "excessive" categories on an article. Assume that all the categories are correctly used: the article belongs to the category, and none of the categories are mutually redundant.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l