Forum:What are Categories for?

Forums: Index > BHOP > What are Categories for?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 987 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Regarding:

• Category:Men claiming paternity of Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter, which was deleted on VFD, and
• Category:People who will not kneel before Zod, which was kept on VFD.

Some of us believe that any category created out of a good sense of humor should survive on that basis. Others say that categories should not be the humor, they should direct you to the humor without stealing the show, and categories that fail to perform that function should be deleted.

It would be nice to reach consensus, because what we are doing on VFD repeatedly is not just disagreeing on thresholds for deletion (which we do all the time) but voting on different questions. Spıke Ѧ 13:15 13-Feb-11

The discussion on VFD

• Comment: Going back over the archives, a few people will have noticed that I flagged bringing obviously obsolete categories was less desirable. Did the decision over this really require seven/(now nine) contributers to vote on this? I ask again that categories are not brought up here unless there are "real" grounds for doing so. If in doubt please go to the lounge or to an admin--Sycamore (Talk) 14:26, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • Since when did we have a rule against bringing categories to VFD? And unless I'm mistaken, poopsmiths don't have the authority to create such a rule. It appears the admins are counting category nominations as valid, since they are voting as normal, not invaliding the nominations, and not telling me to take them somewhere else. Until an admin says otherwise, I'm going to continue assuming that categories nominations are valid.
  • Also, this nomination is contested, ergo it's not qvfd bad. --Mn-z 14:56, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

    Casting my automatic vote against categories that don't help anyone find any article takes less time than drama does. The suggestions that questionable categories either be (1) scooped out and quietly taken to QVFD, or (2) not deleted at all, or (3) brought to Sycamore at the Lounge for private justice, are confusing. I appreciate Mn-z's effort and do regard it as part of the process of improving the site. Spıke Ѧ 16:11 12-Feb-11

    Yes!! This is very confusing and needs a policy ruling beyond what Sycamore is telling us. For example, I personally hate Category:Axis of Evil-Doers. I hate it so much that I nominated it for deletion five months ago, where it survived, 6-5. Am I now being told I have the right to "scoop it out," to remove it not only from mainspace but from userpages, and QVFD it? Because it looks like that is what I'm being told, even though I strongly suspect such a thing would get me banned for dickery. WE NEED A POLICY. pillow talk 16:26, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

    I normally don't disagree with Hype, but I would say we actually don't need a policy on this issue. I believe the current policy of taking bad categories to VFD works fine as it. --Mn-z 22:21, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

    That would be a policy. And if that's the policy, I'm happy with it. But I don't want a situation where if you take a cat to VFD, the poopsmiths get angry, and if you scoop out a cat and take it to QVFD, the admins get angry, and if you take a cat to the lounge, you get angry because no one actually does anything. Some admin just needs to step in and say "This is how we're doing category deletions. People who are saying anything else, shut your fuck up." pillow talk 22:26, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, we should have a policy. We are in two camps; one says that any category created out of a good sense of humor should survive on that basis; the other camp says that categories should not be the humor, they should direct you to the humor without stealing the show, and categories that fail to perform that function should be deleted. Without a ruling, we'll apply inconsistent standards based on who shows up to vote on VFD that day. Spıke Ѧ 22:34 12-Feb-11

    That is sort of beyond the scope of the policy issue. We are talking about procedural issues, not how we should vote. I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and reasons for VFD voting, regardless of how mind-numbingly stoopid those reasons can be at times. --Mn-z 02:33, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

    Sort of beyond, sort of not. We don't need policy on VFD, which works fine, even though people seek to carry out different standards of quality. We do need a policy decision on what Categories are really for, as opposed to recurring debate on it here. Spıke Ѧ 02:41 13-Feb-11

Just to reply to some of the discussion here, in no way have I said this is a policy matter - I loath Rules/Policy and vast 'projects' that get in the way of the sites purpose and do more to stroke egos and step on people's toes than any tangible benefit to the site or the community. I've asked that categories are not brought to VFD, but can be scooped out without VFD; this is simply on the basis of common sense and good faith on the part of contributers. If it's not funny and is completely useless you can come to myself or an admin for a second opinion, and if needs be - bring it to VFD. Otherwise some common sense and a working funnybone (And importantly a respect for contributers) are all that should be required.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:43, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

What's that about ego-stroking, toe-stepping policies without any tangible benefit to the site or community? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:54, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

What the crap is 'common sense'?

1234 ~ 19:56, 13 February 2011

It's about facilitating a culture of agreement and openness and not fostering discontent and redistribution. If we were all to blend the different juices into a drink that, whilst not entirely sweet, was a palatable and refreshing sup, then we'd all be in that place with stuff related to this very subject. I think it was probably Jesus who put it best in one of those books they wrote about him when he spoke about sparrows and the need to respect the sparrows and not to be afraid of the sparrows and to love the sparrows and not to be wounded by the sparrows. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:11, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

You're editing an perfectly good encyclopedia, remember? Look it up! pillow talk 00:42, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Loving well-written humour in Categories

• Wikipedia's categories are all serious and long-faced exact descriptions, very useful yet lacking in any humour. Here a discerning eye looking for pages will find them listed in appropriate categories, and will also be entertained with funny twists on a theme. There be adequate room for both, imnho. Aleister 13:25 13-2-'11

Yeah, you lost me at Wikipedia. So what exactly are you trying to say.---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 13:32, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the ladder. And don't gets me wrongs, there are hundreds of categories which could be removed without anyone missing them. Aleister 13:38

0_o---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 13:46, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

It's "wrong" not "wrongs".---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 13:47, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Resisting random humor in Categories

• As always, don't crack wise with the navigational tools--they should navigate. It is over at Illogicopedia where the tabs are whacked, the toolbar on the left side is whacked, and the month names are whacked. You have instead come to the Foxwoods of comedy web sites. You are trying to get to the Auditorium of your choice (an Uncyclopedia article) for a great show. You should not have to endure a hack stand-up act from the elevator operator. Spıke Ѧ 13:15 13-Feb-11

Agreed. Absurdity is great in comedy, but only to an extent. While I am a fan of satire/comedy in the categories (Example: Zsa-Zsa Gabor being placed in a category for "One-Legged People" or "Founders of Experimental Weight-loss Programs," or somesuch) I think that random category tags makes it difficult to navigate the site, which is frustrating for non-members. I like Spike's analogy, but think having random categories isn't just like having to endure a wannabe stand-up in the elevator at Foxwoods; I think it's more like giving a Foxwoods visitor a map of Mohegan Sun and seeing how long it takes for them to figure out they're in the wrong building. Absurdity is great, but confusion is not. ~  Talk 21:36, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring random humor in Categories

• Ain't doing anything harmful to the environment, so why bother?---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 13:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
• Hear hear. For. keeping everything that has humor value, even if it's potential. Against. turning into Wikipedia 2 alongside all of the rules and regulations involved in it. ~ 13:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
• Strong yes. Out of all the pointless forum topics, this is one of them. Policy is VFD, so there it is. Like humor, which this site I think is still based upon, some things are subjective. If we start enacting policy on VFD other than "vote on what you think is keepable and not" then we might as well just do Vigilance Week again, or systematically delete whatever the hell we want. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:43, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
• That's why I don't like Polish Uncy - they implement all the Wikipedia rules (like "must be in google", "must look like an encyclopedic article" etc.) and the site became boring... I am supporting random humor in Categories. I like it, some are funnier, some are not but it's why it's Uncyclopedia. It's NOT Wikipedia and we should do everything to keep it this way. funny>rules Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 17:06, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
• Agree 100% with the people here. This is what I've been getting at.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:32, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
• The categories have to contain humor. The pages certainly don't. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:05, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

When

Did the whole categorical confusion become about whether or not to vote based on humour? I thought the issue was whether or not to VFD them... folks can vote for whatever reasons they see fit once they're there, anyhow, no? 1234 ~ 15:32, 13 February 2011

Categories are used so people know Things George Bush doesn't care about in an easy to digest manner. - Another n00b 17:08, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Why?:Categorise pages

Can't we just agree that categories are meant to group things together in an orderly manner and when a category adds a nice joke to an article, that doesn't have to be a bad thing? Rather to the contrary, if a category adds to an article's humour, I'd say that's convenient and desirable. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:27, 13 February 2011

Exactly! Or something. If we ever clearly do define the whys and whats and whatnots of this sort of thing, though, it ruins everything, anyhow.

1234 ~ 19:49, 13 February 2011

However, I like to say that saying "Mama Luigi is a goat blower, will not kneel before Zod, and is a member of the axis of evil doers" is not funny. --Mn-z 21:28, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody summarize this whole thing up in four words for me?

Cause a category can. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:43, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Here's another that sums it up pretty well in just four words. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:49, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

And another for the road! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:49, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

And while on the road, you're bound to pick a few categories up, just like you're bound to get syphilis from at least one of the floozies you pick up and give a ride around town. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:07, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

This image of vintage pregnancy pr0n should help explain things: --Mn-z 02:37, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

The Real Reason Why Category Humor Sucks

Inserting wise crack categories is not funny. Its basically like added a colored box template to the top of article: Its what you do when you want to edit an article, but don't want to waste the time and effort thinking of something original to add.

Now, that being said, I think SPIKE is brining up this issue because he's incorrectly assuming that the results of VFD nominations for wise crack categories is too dependent on who is voting at any given time, instead of trying to genocide wise-crack articles.

However, I don't see a strong divide on this issue. Most users (at least those on VFD) generally will vote to delete stoopid categories, but generally vote to keep the more "funny" wise-crack categories. There are some users who almost always favor deletion of all wise crack categories, like SPIKE and myself, some who vote keep on almost all wise-cracking categories, like Governor Hayley Barbour. I really haven't seen any instances on VFD where an article/category/template/whatever was unfairly deleted since the BUTT POOP!!!! drama. --Mn-z 22:47, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

If adding categories is so effortless, why have we a pile of uncategorised pages needing categories? Why don't folks go do that? Doing a decent job of it, though, finding good categories, don't say that don't take effort. Don't say it, or I will so... er... nevermind.

1234 ~ 23:04, 13 February 2011

Actually, we have 89 uncategorized mainspace pages out of 26,045. That means 99.658% of pages on this wiki are categorized. And of those 89 uncategorized pages, probably half are day old ICU/QVFD bad articles. --Mn-z 03:18, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Eh, Socky went through and categorised a lot of them the other day. And that doesn't mean the other ones are categorised well, anyhow. Since they're more likely to actually need it; you're right about the uncategorised ones sucking. Problem is, they also tend to be more of the VFD age, which means putting slightly more thought into dealing with them.

1234 ~ 03:38, 16 February 2011

When did we become Wikipedia? I would love to know the exact date and time, maybe even the exact edit, that marked the occasion. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

October 17, 2009. --Mn-z 00:23, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was November 23, 2008? DJ Mixerr 23:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

On a more serious note, I believe random vandalism/clutter/quotes/bright header boxes/whatever has been unfunny since sometime in 2005. --Mn-z 02:34, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well the Fonz jumped the shark back in 1977, and I'm still laughing. Eh? It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 04:10, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Vandalism is unfunny and so is the clutter. DJ Mixerr 21:00, February 20, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

A message to everyone

ジャスティンビーバーは同性愛者であり、彼は下品な魚のペニスが子猫をレイプを使用しています。ダーティファッカー

Speak English dude---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 21:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha... so Kanye must like Bieber then, no? ◄► Tephra ◄► 22:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

JA JA JA! ORALE?!? DJ Mixerr 23:25, February 17, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)

Hyperbole's Two BILLION Cents

I'm not very interested in arguing "What's a category for." It's obvious to me. Funny > rules, but Fucking up the wiki and making it lame != funny. Presto.

What I'm more interested in is Sycamore's whole "Use common sense and scoop out the category and take it to QVFD" thing.

Like I said above - my own common sense told me that Category:Axis of Evil-Doers was not funny, but rather, fucked up the wiki and made it lame. So I took it to VFD - where the fucking thing was somehow kept. So, maybe I have no common sense, or maybe most of you don't have common sense, but one things' clear: not all of us agree on what common sense is and not all of us have it.

So my POLICY QUESTION is: Hyperbole visits Joe Biden and sees Category:People who didn't fuck your mom in the kitchen last night. What is Hyperbole to do? Go to VFD? Unilaterally obliterate the category? Head over to the Poopsmith's Lounge and ask Syc to borrow a cup o' sense?

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO IN A SUCH A SITUATION?? pillow talk 00:48, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Something? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:24, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Use your other common sense to ignore the poopsmith and take it to VFD anyway? That's what I do.

1234 ~ 02:59, 16 February 2011

Per above. --Mn-z 03:08, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

My advice if you see a category such as 'Category:People who didn't fuck your mom in the kitchen last night', is that instead of unilaterally trying to obliterate it, you go to Wikipedia and attempt to unilaterally apply it. I must warn you they will take such actions very seriously over there. There's a long and fractous discussion on the above category for the article 'Rod Stewart' raging as we speak. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:42, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

So basically, it appears that no-one objects to the "take it to VFD as has been standard practice for years" policy. --Mn-z 01:02, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

We need a Policy Policy for our Policies

Totally bro -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Inb4 "Uncyclopedia:Official Policy on Policies." MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:37, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

BUNGLE JOINS TEH COLBERT REPORT

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Another n00b (talk • contribs)

-- 22:34, February 28, 2011 (UTC)