Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
15,595
pages
in: Archived proposals

ESB:Proposals/Removing "all" categories

< ESB:Proposals
View source

Wiki
Proposal Archive
The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: July 23, 2015


Result: Passes at 71% support.


Introduction

This petition has received the necessary amount of endorsements.

Proposal

This is a proposal to remove the following categories:

  1. Category:All objects
  2. Category:All transcripts
  3. Category:All galleries

The "all" categories are redundant, because we already have these categories:

  1. Category:Objects
  2. Category:Transcripts
  3. Category:Galleries

AMK152 said in this thread that the point of the "all" categories is so the categories without the word "all" don't contain subcategories. However, there is nothing wrong with subcategories, so the "all" categories are unneeded.

This discussion will end on Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 9:30 p.m., eastern time. ~JCM 01:30, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been extended to Sunday, July 26, 2015, at 9:30 p.m, eastern time, unless a consensus is reached before then.  Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign!Dp  05:14, July 21, 2015 (UTC) 

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose Strong Oppose - I never said there was anything wrong with subcategories. Both of these exist to serve two different purposes. For simplicity, I will use objects. "All objects" contain all objects. Meaning, those are just objects. A list of objects is not an object. It is a list. Yes, it pertains to objects, and that is what the "Objects" category is used for. We do subcategorize objects, and so we only should use subcategories within the "Objects" category.
  • Coral Bits is categorized as Food, which is categorized as Objects by type.
  • Coral Bits are not categorized as "Objects" because that is the general category.
  • However, since we want to include all objects in the same category, we use all objects.
  • Look how clean this is: Category:Objects.
  • Also, they are (should be at least) automatically generated, so they don't have to be placed manually.
  • Here are the reasons to keep them:
  • 1. Both serve different purposes. "Objects" contains all subcategories (and those objects yet to be subcategorized or those lacking an infobox to generate such a category) while "All objects" just has the objects.
  • 2. Looks cleaner (instead of cluttering the "main" categories)
  • 3. Maintenance. These "all" categories are used to group sets of articles into groups for easily "grabbing" a group of articles to run a bot task. If everyone wishes, we could maek these hidden categories for maintenance purposes.

— AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 04:14, July 15, 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose - Per AMK. PrezDubs messagewall 21:09, July 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - I just remembered all the work I did. --Patrick Star (Oh My....) 21:38, July 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Weak Oppose - I do see why Andrew wants to use them, it's so that the objects that are only objects are objects, but the food category is an object, but the food in the category are not categorised as an object. and similar would go for other stuff.Tominator777 (Wall•Contribs) 22:39, July 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - I did lots of work. -PatrickFanatic Patrick star

Neutral


Comments



Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement