Category talk:Conservapedia side-by-side articles

I would appreciate it if someone fixed Conservapedia:Evolution so it no longer falls under "T". I tried to fix it myself, but I couldn't find what was causing it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:40, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Dun.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 23:43, 5 February 2009 (EST)

(EC again by Toast, like when I was trying to fix the T problem) Why have all the side-by-sides been taken out of the main cat? They are some of the better articles on Conservapedia. About about 50% of the articles on CP are rubbish that just got moved to Conservapedia namespace because we don't want to hurt a n00bs feelings. - User $\pi$ 23:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry about that Pi, i suppose I should be asleep - it's 4:49am & I'm editing in bed.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 23:50, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I am awake and should be working so as not to be edit conflicted by you. - User $\pi$ 23:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Echoing what Pi is saying above - why do we need to break a category into further subcategories? RA, I'm not sure you understand how these should work. THe point of cats is to SIMPLIFY navigation, not COMPLICATE it. All Side-By-Side articles should be in one and only one cat. Else we'll end up with a S-by-S cat for every topic under the sun, and no way to cross ref any of them. DogP 00:00, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I like subcats as it is easier to find what you are looking for, I just can't see what is wrong with them being in Conservapedia, Conservapedia side-by-side and general side-by-side at the same time. It is like the "tree of life" as my biology lecturer said about 8 years ago now we no longer look at it as a tree but more a forest, flat with lot of spike sticking up and vines joining seemingly unrelated parts. - User $\pi$ 00:07, 6 February 2009 (EST)

But can you not see that none of those cats are interlinked? There's no relationship between CP:S-by-S and Gen:S-by-S. And then why don't we have Science:Side-by-Side? Fun:Side-by-Side? Politics:Side-By-Side? It just opens an entire can of worms that is a ball of wax AND a bag of ferrets at the same time - i.e. a nightmare? Cats should be simple and elegant, as flat as possible and interrelated. DogP 00:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I created Conservapedia side-by-side articles as a way of filtering out articles when we had about 300+ in the main cat Conservapedia so people could find what they wanted faster. If people wanted lulz at CPs expense we had Conservapedia fun article, if you were interested in particular people we had Conservapedia sysops and if you wanted serious refutations we had Conservapedia side-by-side, but most (not all) of the articles were still in the main cat. - User $\pi$ 00:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

"...why don't we have Science:Side-by-Side? Fun:Side-by-Side? Politics:Side-By-Side? It just opens an entire can of worms..." Having used that argument myself once, I can say that it's a bad argument. A category gets made here when a need for one is felt. Some will be kept, while some will be deleted. Trying to force unwanted categories on the wiki, simply because logic dictates that they be made, is a rejection of the free-spirited nature of this place. Hence, that argument is particularly surprising coming from you—you who, up to now, gave the impression they disliked idea of having enforced rules on the community. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:25, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I'm all for free spirited and as few rules as possible. But categories make navigating around a wiki much, much easier. And they should at least work. Here's a fantastic example of a category that is a total disaster, for example. The way categorization works is when you go from General-> Specific. So, for example, you might make a reasonable argument for Side-by-Side articles-> Conservapedia. This category starts specific, and goes nowhere, neither up nor down the tree. I dread to think how you've got the folders in your computer arranged. DogP 01:48, 6 February 2009 (EST)

We seem to agree that categories should go from general to specific, but we seem to part ways from there. I'm trying to understand exactly what you think our system should be, so could you go into more detail? (e.g. do you think that some articles need to be in both the general category and the specific category? What is the criteria determining which articles go into both the parent cat and subcat, which articles go in only the parent cat, and which in only the subcat? Or do you favor eliminating the subcats entirely? Just some of them? If so, what is the criteria determining which subcats are kept and which deleted?) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Delete

I think this cat should be deleted. It is subsumed by "side by side articles" and "conservapedia", both of which are interesting cats. This one isn't. I just ran through a bunch of edits adding this cat and saw no improvement by using its utter specialization. ħuman 03:02, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Agreed. DogP 03:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

My poor cat. Okay delete it. I still like utter specialization. - User $\pi$ 03:31, 6 February 2009 (EST)

It's odd—I don't care at all that the cat's being deleted. I guess... because someone else made it, and I only (dutifully, I thought) added the appropriate articles to it. Thinking about it, I guess all I really care about is the system we're using to categorize our articles, and not the categories themselves. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:54, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I'm in favour of the cat being deleted just to piss Arthur off. And yeah, the duplication thing. --Kels 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)