From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Categories
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 April 2010 by Calebchiam.

I recently noticed that Iiii I I I was found in the category Category:Fire breathers. After clicking on it, I found that it was an absolutely useless category with three people in it. I'd mark it for RfD, but I'd rather establish a rule that we can put into RS:POLICIES about categories. If I didn't, then people could continue to create useless categories such as Category:Users obsessed with bukkits, Category:Users who hate proper grammar, or Category:Users who take issue with the clearly established rules of standard written English.

An earlier category that underwent the standard RfD process and got deleted was Category:Active users. I believe the RfD can be found here.

Anyways, I'd like to propose that a category must have the following characteristics:

  • Be a meaningful category that describes something useful. Category:Quests does, Category:Fire breathers does not.
  • Have at least 5 2 pages that fall into the category. (The number may change, but it must be more than 1, for a category with a single item in it is meaningless)
  • More will be added as I come up with them.

Please post your thoughts.

----LiquidTalk 01:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

PS. I forgot how the magic colon works. Iiii I I I, if you're reading this, fix it please! And when you're done, delete all my (magic colon please) found in the passage. Thanks.


Support - As proposer. ----LiquidTalk 01:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support - I feel that some categories that can not be proven, kept up-to-date, or is just spam. We can let some fun categories, such as those, but too many isn't the best idea. I don't feel they are all that bad at this moment, and what harm does that category do? User categories should be allowed, just as long as they aren't completely spam, or they don't get too out of hand. ~MuzTalk 01:36, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle that we should have some fun categories, but I disagree in practice. How do you draw the line between some and too many? Is it 5? Or 6? Or 7? You get my point. ----LiquidTalk 01:40, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
I feel that a set number shouldn't be used, just common sense. Don't create user categories JUST for the fun of it. Make it a category that people can use and just have fun with it. If there is ever a time that a few too many categories have been created, a Request for Deletion can just be used. ~MuzTalk 01:44, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Er, you said that we shouldn't create categories for fun. And then you said that we should create categories for fun. Which one do you mean? ----LiquidTalk 01:46, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, wrong wording. You shouldn't go creating categories just because you can, and it's there for you. Or, don't create categories that are just for you, but others can use it. ~MuzTalk 01:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
I see. However, some nonsense categories can be created and could be used by many users. What's the point of that? I'd rather just see proper categories that are actually useful. ----LiquidTalk 01:49, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
I guess if it's that much nonsense, a Request for Deletion would be the best option. ~MuzTalk 01:52, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
A Request for deletion would work, but it's a slow and painful process that consumes much time and energy. Furthermore, all requests are archived, so all those requests will use up much more server space (mostly from flagrant signatures and overlong explanations) than the original category ever will. ----LiquidTalk 01:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't think about it from that point. I'm not sure of what to do. The idea of five pages in one would only make users ask friends to add into that category. Also that the meaningful categories, what would happen to those that are already created? ~MuzTalk 02:05, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
The number can change to only two. Having a category with one page in it is pointless. Categories already in exitense (I completely drew a blank on how to spell that) should not be affected by the new rules, if they do take effect. ----LiquidTalk 03:17, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support/Comment - User:Chicken7/Categorisation_proposal - Seems like I have been somewhat beaten in one of my points; I better propose that discussion soon! Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 04:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Unfortunately there is already a frivalous category relating to "bukkits" at Category:User follows Bukkit. I added the {{d}} tag but it was removed. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 13:12, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Most of those categories, if not all of them, are there for the purpose of userboxes and seeing who has them on their page. Whenever you add a userbox, you are almost always adding yourself to one of these "fun" categories. They are simply there for our own enjoyment. If we where to delete them, we may as well remove the RSWP, Wikifests, Userpages, weekly events, the clan chat, and everything else this community just does for fun. While we do need to keep it in check, I don't think it is a problem as of now. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:33, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Who said that a userbox MUST have a category attached to it? You have several userboxes on your profile which dont have categories. example {{Template:UserAnnoyed}}. You can use this page to see who else has a userbox too, you dont need frivalous categories. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:07, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
You may be right. If you take a look at the UserAnnoyed template, you can see I didn't put it there Wink. The thing I still don't see is how having the categories is any worse than having the userbox itself. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's not a really big problem, but it can get out of hand. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Stelercus. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:40, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In response to Stelercus's point, having categories is different from userboxes. Userboxes are meant to be a way for editors to share information about themselves. If they want to have fun with userboxes, then that's perfectly fine. Categories, on the other hand, are ways to aid the organization of similar articles. Those should be kept clean and professional. ----LiquidTalk 23:17, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter? User categories are not linked to from the "professional" part of this wiki. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:29, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
I realize that, but I doubt this is what categories were meant to be used for (unless part of a userbox). Userboxes are meant to be used for things like this, not categories. ----LiquidTalk 02:01, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
You're not explaining why it's bad, though. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:49, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Who or what is it hurting? It doesn't have any impact on the mainspace. I believe the expression is "Some stones are better left unturned" though it sounded more relevant in my head... scoot4.pngscooties 06:48, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - These categories are (and if not should be) subcategories in Category:Users, much like userboxes and such are in Category:User templates. IMO, if you're going to delete the more fun categories (such as Category:Dog lovers|1, Category:User Hates GP|2, Category:User follows Bukkit|3, Category:Pet rock lovers|4), you're going to have to delete pretty much all other subcategories of Category:Users (with the exception of :Category:Hiscore autoupdate, which is required for QBot to work, and possibly Category:Administrators/Category:Bureaucrats, though they are all listed here anyway), as none of them are really useful to the wiki; they're not content categories, they're just grouping users which have similar interests or achievements.

Category:Active users was deleted more because it was out of date and impossible/not worth the bother of automating, than because it was not useful (it was useful when it was up-to-date). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 11:38, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

support - not as big a deal as talk: bukkit, but i still oppose it, just for the heck of it. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 02:35, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Well... I suppose I never should have started this post in the first place. Now, Category:Fire breathers is actually gaining members, and Rwojy won't let me mark it for speedy deletion anymore, even with many admins willing to delete it. The audacity of dope. ----LiquidTalk 03:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I learned last night when I burped into a lighter I could breathe fire! scoot4.pngscooties 05:14, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Also it would just be a big headache removing everyone from each category and also removing it for each and every userbox. scoot4.pngscooties 05:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Would take a bot only a few minutes to do it. Its not a big headache at all. even doing it manually would be pretty easy. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 09:12, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

User categories are fine - For all the silly and random categories out there, what's the harm. As long as they under Category:Users then let people make some fun stuff for the community. I wouldn't want these categories to overlap our content-based categories, and I don't think they do. So let people have some fun and enjoy the community.

If some people are actually talking about some other types of category cleanup, I'd be happy to discuss that. Chicken seemed to have some good ideas in his proposal. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 09:45, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'll propose mine soon when I get time. Smile Chicken7 >talk 11:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I really don't actually mind these categories, but something has really been getting at me... Why do we allow and support useless categories like this that do not in any way make our wiki more encyclopaedic or useful to readers, but not allow so much content and information that has the potential to make us the #1 RuneScape fansite. I'm talking about things such as articles about future content, articles about common memes and topics, RSMV images that are not illegal, animations that are an apparent "waste" of our near-infinite space, articles that are not notable enough, "too many" images on articles and many, MANY more examples... Chicken7 >talk 11:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Conmment - I like this category:Images taken with Orb of oculus What a wonderful way to put up personal images without having to have them in the mainspace! And no one told me about it? I had to search for it? --TheLastWordSword 16:10, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

??? Personal images shouldn't be uploaded in any way, because they're a waste of space. That category is not meant to be an excuse to upload personal images... Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:33, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. C.ChiamTalk 13:37, April 2, 2010 (UTC)