Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"redundant categories"[edit]

@Apokrif: I'm curious why you believe the categories you removed from this page are "redundant". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is a subcategory of them. Apokrif (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can tell, that doesn't apply to Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at Category:Wikipedia_arbitration. Apokrif (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:CATSPECIFIC is the guideline here ("Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs"), with one of the exceptions being WP:EPON, which applies to eponymous categories like Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.
EPON is written to apply only to articles, but it's unclear if that's intentional or an oversight. The reasoning behind it seems to apply to non-article pages, and I'd argue that those who are using categories to navigate project space (a limited number) would benefit from this page being in both the eponymous category and Category:Wikipedia functionaries and Category:Wikipedia arbitration (more specific than the dispute resolution one). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to admit I am begining to question if categories are really as useful as we act like they are and if users actually use them to find content they are looking for. The possibility that the whole byzantine category structure with all it's myriad rules has very little actual benefit to the reader, yet is the basis for so many discussions is something I think the community should consider. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do use categories to find articles related to something I'm working on, but I will admit to being an atypical user. I am puzzled at times about how categories are organized, and may blunder down several paths before I find what I am looking for. I am not sure how many casual readers will be as persistent as I am. Donald Albury 20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use categories to find related articles, too. They're helpful in filling in 'see also' sections and for connecting orphans to other articles when the Find link tool has no suggestions. I don't remember if or how I used them as a reader who wasn't an editor. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know some people are very "into" categories, and I do find them useful in article space, but I don't find them particularly useful anywhere else, and in particular I'm not fond of people adding categories to other people's userspace. I find the templates at the bottoms of pages to be far more useful in the Wikipedia space, because they will take me straight to the relevant page. Risker (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a few updates to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History to reflect the success of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023). I wanted to flag them somewhere since I am neither an Arb or a Clerk. They shouldn't be controversial, though wordsmithing is always possible. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They look good to me. Thanks. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]