RationalWiki talk:Cat fight

Shenanigans
The following was deleted from the page, which is a discussion, by an editor who wishes to control the discussion. It is, in reality, the start of the discussion, and many point were made in it. I decry said editor's actions, and their competence at presenting broad wiki-wide ideas and arguments, when they seem to want to move important commentary out of the way of the way, because it interferes with the way they want the discussion structured. It has all been copied back to the "project page". human  00:33, 19 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Human, don't be a silly boy.   I started the conversation, on your Talk page.   You suggested a separate discussion, which I agreed with.   But you did nothing.   So, I had to go into your Talk page and move the stuff.   I set up a Discussion page, and put the material from your Talk page on the Talk page.  Seemed logical.   But no, despite my earnest efforts, you just came along, imposed your own will, and built this mess, with the same conversation in two places.    Glass houses, remember?   Suffice it to say, I disagree strongly with your tactics and mudslinging in my general direction - I have no interest in controlling the discussion whatsoever.   But I still love you, despite your attempts to cast muck about.


 * Now, where are we to debate?  On the Project page, regarding the Categories?   Or here, on the Talk Page?   You tell me - you're obviously in charge here, so whatever you say, Boss.   Right behind you, Sir.   The Mob Will Not Rule, It's Your Castle.   DogP  03:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Copied from Human's Talk Page
"The following thread was copied from Human's Talk page on 3/18/08:" (Some preamble to the real meat of the thread)

Cleaning up categories I can understand. Targeting Category:Phony Ex-Satanist Christans, Category:Reptilian Shape Shifters, Category:Jesus Spam, etc. for deletion first made no sense at all. They seemed like a perfect fit for RW, irreverant, snarky and something people might be interested in a specific category for. Too narrow in scope? So is Category:Scientology. Too silly and irreverant? So are Category:BloodSugarSexMagick and all of the Woo categories, since woo is not a word. Seems to be a double standard here. And that double standard appeared (to me at least) to be based on who created them. This came right after the mission doubt tag got put on Facebook right after I created it, which I was fine with but if we are going to delete all the lulz from the site let's delete them all, starting with all the goat related stuff. Lulz are good, that's what made it such fun to edit here, but when I get the impression things I added thinking they were a perfect fit for the site are not welcome, the fun is over. Secret Squirrel 17:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Squirrel, keep your pants on. Like you, I love the snark on this site. But I also believe that Categories shouldn't be part of that - if we go down that route, we might as well not bother having categories. If they too become endlessly entertaining, but I can guarantee that they'll become utterly useless. If you want to keep categories:Snark, Mockery AND Sarcasm, you'd be wanting a damn good argument in my book. Believe me, I was not targeting your work, I've been a Category Nazi since I ever got here, and it just so happened yours were the ones that came into my sights yesterday. I too have in the past argued for replacing BloodSexSugarMagick with Drugs, but it was created by others who were here before me, and they like it that way. Fine. But before you start adding back endless entertaining specific Categories, keep in mind that as of yesterday, we had > 300 categories, and no category for Archaeology, which to me seems a darn sight more targeted to our purpose than Phony Ex-Satanist Christians, which is an ARTICLE, not a Category. Keep the snark to the articles, but not to the Categories, PLEASE. DogP  18:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


 * (EC) Thanks for telling us what was up, I appreciate it! I think if early on you had made that exact argument on DP's (or my) talk page, a lot of frustration might have been bypassed.  For instance, we could have discussed whether one user should go around deleting mass quantities of categories, whether we a lot of weird but interesting cats or not, etc.  A question comes up that occurred to me - given all of the various outlets for lulz in wiki-editing (funny links from words, the writing itself...), do we want that to extend to cats as well?  It would seem in line with our overall tone, but we should be having a conversation, not reacting to unilateral actions - both of which may be perceived by some to be damaging rather than improving the site.  Coming to a general agreement between as many users who are interested before major refactoring makes for a better working/playing environment for everyone - even if one "loses" an argument, it is at least satisfying to be listened to first, and get a chance to see everyone's perspective before radical changes.  (PS, woo is a word.  One we define clearly on this site - at my request, since I had no idea in hell what it was when I came across it here!)  Talk pages are a great vehicle for discussing almost anything before action, and there should never any big hurry to delete things within hours (unless they are libelous or vandalism, of course).  Anyway, I hope that at least 1/3 of what I just typed made sense and that we can get a decent discussion going about these issues. human  18:10, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

One other thing - I don't know if you've tried to rename a badly named (or simply misspelled) but popular Category. If you have ever tried to deal with such a thing with hundreds of members, know that fixing that problem is a NIGHTMARE, as you have to rename it on each and every article. So just engage brain before creating any Category, it can screw with a LOT of stuff down the road. DogP  18:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I was furious when you deleted "Category:Users on Dodecatuple Secret Probation... ROBOT HOUSE!!!". That was an Ames creation. TmtamesP 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Tough shit. That was one of the worst offenders, even with all apologies to Ames. DogP  18:19, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * DP, please read my comment above. We need to agree as a group that we don't want some of these "trivial" categories, not have one user unilaterally make the decision.  perhaps we should move this discussion to talk main page, since it is of wiki-wide interest and many people may have opinions.  Personally, I certainly agree that categories that only have, say, one user page in them are clutter (a userbox works better), but I am not convinced that some of our general lulzy/snarky attitude cannot also be expressed in categories.  Oh, and "tough shit" is not a very strong way to start your argument.  Of course, you were responding to #17, so it was appropriate in context ;) human  18:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey sport, what is #17? TmtamesP 18:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * #17 speaks! DogP  18:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, let's open a discussion about Categories! Main Page it is. Wanna move all this over, and then let's lay out some opening arguments for everyone to respond to? DogP  18:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * #17 is the new name for anything related to our long lost editor nadhoB. DP: I think copying it (or moving it and leaving a link) makes sense. Maybe it should get its own discussion page, say at rationalwiki/categories?  With a seeding link from the main page? human  18:33, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I like that idea better.  DogP  18:37, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Care to explain how it came about, sport? TmtamesP 18:35, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * My doppelganger on CP, your BFF Nadhob17, as I recall, was one inspiration. human  20:10, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I hope, in all this talk about "unilateral category changes", that none of you mean the hundred or so unilateral category changes I just did? -- 19:37, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Kind of EXACTLY my point RA.  You know how hard it is to wrangle categories.   For me, what you were doing earlier is exactly what we need.  DogP  19:41, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, you did change one I knew we had and then couldn't use 'cause I couldn't find it... And, hey, Dog, please indent yr commenz. ;) I no we do it wrong hear an al but at leest we indenz. human  22:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Miscelineans
Is it bad that I didn't get the pun in the title until it was pointed out at RWW? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 21:07, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh come now. Surely not? DogP  21:46, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

RationalWikiWiki
RWW is too snarky. It says too much about what’s bad about us as individuals. It says too much about what’s bad about us as a group. We’re not as bad as RWW makes out. We’re a rapidly growing Wiki with good articles. We need less destructive criticism and more constructive encouragement. There is always a risk here and at RWW that Christian Agent provocateurs are playing on the weaknesses of those here who are tempted to be snarky and putting us against each other. Barbara Shack 04:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * We have no reason to believe the are Christian provocateurs among us. And I think we could pick up any; the last person whose edits were interpreted as even vaguely creationist felt the wrath of RationalWiki crash down upon him and he was banned.  And I think we do a fine job of pitting each other against ourselves—we don't need anyone's help.  : )  By the way, are you sure this was the most appropriate place to bring up RationalWikiWiki?  It felt sort of... out of the blue.  -- 05:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * But that's the whole point of an agent provocateur, isn't it? You don't realize they're agents until its... too late! Oh noes! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 06:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Where should I discuss RWW?Barbara Shack 06:25, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * RationalWiki_talk:RationalWikiWiki is probably best. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 06:49, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm copying this there.Barbara Shack 07:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)