RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Bullshit

Category:Bullshit | Result: No Consensus

Category:Bullshit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. A category that, if applied consistently, would cover at least 50% of RW's articles, which makes it useless as a category, since it's inclusion doesn't convey any additional information - if something is bullshit, the article itself should make that clear - and it doesn't help the user find other articles within a specific topic. Like many of the old categories, it's used mostly as a form of editorial comment, and like many other forms of editorial comments on RW, it has the subtlety of a hammer. ZooGuard (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

   "The subtlety of a hammer" was bad wording on my part, me lapsing into a cliche. I should have guessed that some people here would consider it a compliment. What I tried to express was: adding something to the "Bullshit" category and putting piped links to Bullshit is easy, actually explaining why it's bullshit and convincing people it's bullshit is hard. The category is a part of a larger problem with a certain ethos widespread on RW that might have been benign in RW's early days, but now it has developed into cancer. --ZooGuard (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   *snaps fingers appreciatively at cancer pun* FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2. See the above by ZG.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Meh.--Owlman (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
4. From orbit! Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
5. ZooGuard has a plausible case. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Yes! Too many bullshit categories! Read-Write (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   Why is the feng shui page in the bullshit category but the qi page isn't? Read-Write (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

7. Terrible, stupid and not useful - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
8. In many cases this category seems to be overly applied and adds nothing to the article. For example, the article on Wayne LaPierre is a "Bullshit-related stub." As if it's not clearly obvious the he is batshit crazy and one of many insufferable assholes, the bullshit tag is dumped on as well. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   So maybe it should be removed from that article? ħuman 03:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

9. Too vague, shoot it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
10. Not particularly useful; definitely not funny (it's a different topic but some of the bullshit link piping is equally unfunny and overused). You obviously can put too many articles in a category: for instance, people would rightly object if I created Category:Articles and proceeded to add every article on the wiki to that category, and a category that could cover half our articles at a conservative estimate (not that we like those here) is almost as useless. Subcats can turn into cats if "Bullshit" is their only common underlying theme. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 23:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
11. A broad category that could encompass basically every article here. Nuke it from orbit, I say!брэндэн (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
2. I, for one, like the (un)subtlety of a hammer. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
3. In quasi-rebuttal to ZooGuard's comment above, only half of the RW articles? Perfect then. Someone may prefer to peruse them at their leisure, uninterrupted by forays into social issues and our articles about things that aren't bullshit. I say keep it. Another argument in favor of keeping it is that so many articles have been placed in it by previous editors. Undoing all their work and effort with the stroke of a bot seems like little more than the vendetta of a bored bot-writer. ħuman 03:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   I now see one argument for deletion and three for keeping it, by the way. ħuman 03:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   I would be most pleased to remove the category via hand-made artisanal organic free-range edits, lovingly and individually crafted, if that would make you feel better - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   Or you could just leave it alone, in a gently fondling passive-aggressive manner. ħuman 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Same reasons as .236 up there. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Rooted in RW's origin story, and not so broken that it needs fixing. I mistrust any tendency to make the wiki's tone blander and more palatable. The mission is not about the taxonomy of "implements for geological redistribution, air cooled, manually operated." It is about calling things what they are. SmartFeller (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   It's not a question of "making the wiki blander and more palatable". I am not against humor and calling a spade a spade. The problem is that many, if not most of the attempts at doing both on RW are low effort and low quality. It's often a symptom of lazy writing, or worse, lazy thinking. And humor and "humor" should not impede usability.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   Cogent points, and you make a persuasive argument above. Gotta respect how your perspective extends through the epochs of RW history. Still, I don't think it is so broken that it needs fixing. In the spirit of "don't hang me, hang that fellow behind the tree" I would suggest "unremitting horror" as a scapegoat catgory for removal. I never really understood that one. I think we can keep "insufferable assholes" for now; I'm surprised it hasn't been axed yet, for BLP reasons. SmartFeller (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   "Insufferable assholes" falls under "obviously subjective opinion", which is legally protected. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

6. Works well with subcategories. Where else would you put Category: Silly "Earth" theories, for instance? Annquin (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
7. Typhoon (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
8. What possible harm can there be in putting a load of articles in any category? Unless, of course, the categorisation is at fault. FCP seems to think that his RW editing muscles will atrophy if he doesn't exercise them often enough. (I know it wasn't FCP who started this deletion request but FCP started it in the saloon - he^(?) is a wanker.) Pippa (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   alas, I am slain -- a wanker FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   It actually started as an off-hand complaint by David Gerard. Another user who shared the same opinion about the category started a thread on the Saloon Bar. A third user who shared the same opinion decided that it would be more productive to make an actual deletion discussion.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   So now an off-hand complaint, taken up by our resident busybody with poor judgement, is worthy of chasing around the tree. ħuman 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

9. A good category for miscellaneous bullshit. KOMF 20:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
10. Keep it! Who doesn't love a little bullshit! On the serious side, we need more articles here, not less. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
11. Overused and vague, but some stuff really is just plain bullshit. Editors should consider before use whether adding certain articles to the category is useful before doing so. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
12. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• On the "subcategories" thing: they can either be categories on their own (shocker!) or fit into other categories, such as "conspiracy theories" and the various wingnuttery categories (which are at least useful in differentiating kinds of bullshit). FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  What? I know what all those words mean, but I can't understand what you wrote with them. ħuman 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)