| Revision as of 14:42, 5 June 2009 editBongomatic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,898 edits →List of bacon dishes: take 5← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:48, 5 June 2009 edit undoBongomatic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,898 editsm →List of bacon dishes: refactor unncessary sarcasmNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :::I do not believe that that list of advantages and disadvantages is meant to be comprehensive; therefore, the fact that the list in question does not meet any of the listed disadvantages is not an argument for keeping it. Meanwhile, which advantages do you feel the list meets? As for the "listed items" standards, that seems to be directed towards lists whose criteria for inclusion may be vague or arbitrary. I am not arguing that the criteria for inclusion in this list is vague or unclear, so it's only natural that you won't find support for deletion at ]. The mere fact that criteria for inclusion in a list are clear is not in and of itself a justification for the list; otherwise we could have ]. To put it another way: I am not challenging that ''if'' the list exists, it is appropriate to include ] on the list, which is what ] is directed towards (it is, I agree, verifiable, neutral, and referenced that ] is a dish that contains bacon). I am challenging whether the list should exist at all, and ] is silent on that matter. ] (]) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | :::I do not believe that that list of advantages and disadvantages is meant to be comprehensive; therefore, the fact that the list in question does not meet any of the listed disadvantages is not an argument for keeping it. Meanwhile, which advantages do you feel the list meets? As for the "listed items" standards, that seems to be directed towards lists whose criteria for inclusion may be vague or arbitrary. I am not arguing that the criteria for inclusion in this list is vague or unclear, so it's only natural that you won't find support for deletion at ]. The mere fact that criteria for inclusion in a list are clear is not in and of itself a justification for the list; otherwise we could have ]. To put it another way: I am not challenging that ''if'' the list exists, it is appropriate to include ] on the list, which is what ] is directed towards (it is, I agree, verifiable, neutral, and referenced that ] is a dish that contains bacon). I am challenging whether the list should exist at all, and ] is silent on that matter. ] (]) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::There could be hundreds of bacon recipes, a Google search reveals two . The list could possibly include thousands of redlinks and will be permanently incomplete. It seems too trivial to have a list, we could also have a ] or a ], but that would be too broad and trivial, the best place for ingredient lists is the ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | :::::There could be hundreds of bacon recipes, a Google search reveals two . The list could possibly include thousands of redlinks and will be permanently incomplete. It seems too trivial to have a list, we could also have a ] or a ], but that would be too broad and trivial, the best place for ingredient lists is the ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Actually, a list of dishes would not typically appear in a cookbook (I just checked several popular ones). In fact, it's precisely the sort of information that would appear in a specialized, food-related encyclopedia. |
::::::::Actually, a list of dishes would not typically appear in a cookbook (I just checked several popular ones). In fact, it's precisely the sort of information that would appear in a specialized, food-related encyclopedia. This is relevant, as the ] begins with the statement "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias." <font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::: Any article on Misplaced Pages "could possibly include thousands of redlinks". I just don't know of any article that actually does. With one exception, all of these appear to be on the list because they have an article about them in Misplaced Pages. I agree that some of these items are too trivial to merit their own article -- do we really need a page on ]? -- but nobody has moved to delete them. As long as people care about things like ], it will be a blue linked term. ] (]) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::: Any article on Misplaced Pages "could possibly include thousands of redlinks". I just don't know of any article that actually does. With one exception, all of these appear to be on the list because they have an article about them in Misplaced Pages. I agree that some of these items are too trivial to merit their own article -- do we really need a page on ]? -- but nobody has moved to delete them. As long as people care about things like ], it will be a blue linked term. ] (]) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :← (After edit conflict) This isn't an ] but I wanted to point out that there is a ] and ]. Having redlinks isn't the end of the world, and that should be easily curtailed by ] where it says to ] before adding an entry to the list. Also ingredient lists being more appropriate for WikiBooks cookbook is not a criterion for deletion. --] (]) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | :← (After edit conflict) This isn't an ] but I wanted to point out that there is a ] and ]. Having redlinks isn't the end of the world, and that should be easily curtailed by ] where it says to ] before adding an entry to the list. Also ingredient lists being more appropriate for WikiBooks cookbook is not a criterion for deletion. --] (]) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:48, 5 June 2009
List of bacon dishes
- List of bacon dishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There already is a Category:Bacon dishes Samuell Lift me up or put me down 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Unlike the category, the list explains what these things are. Yeah, a category is a lot better if I have the time to click on each of the entries. We can have both a category and a list. One of those is efficient. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
CommentSpeedy keep (along with its imputation of bad faith). The stated reason for deletion lacks validity per Misplaced Pages:Lists#Purposes of lists, which states specifically that:
- redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic.
- See also WP:CLN. Bongomatic 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nominator was notified of the lack of validity of the reason for the nomination and has refused to withdraw it or modify it to be consistent with guidelines. Bongomatic 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep lists and categories are permitted to coexist. Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists suggests categories are more appropriate where the list will get out of date quickly, that is not the case here. --kelapstick (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the list does more than the category so removing it would be a net loss for Misplaced Pages. Tavix | Talk 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep- I'm starting to feel like i'm repeating myself. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, they're supportive, each one doing things the other can't. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, categories and lists perform different functions, and in some instances it is appropriate to have both a category and a list on a topic. However, "categories and lists are not mutually exclusive" is not a blanket argument for creating a corresponding list for every single category on Misplaced Pages. In particular, I note that "Misplaced Pages articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.... Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." But the dishes in this list, for the most part, are not famous because they have bacon. Chuck (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like another reason (besides "it sounds silly") not to have something called Category: Bacon dishes. "I'll take 'Bacon Dishes' for $400, Alex!" (Sean Connery remark left to imagination) Mandsford (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am unable to find any basis for your opinion in Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Lists, where many of the advantages seem apposite, and none of the disadvantages. Nor is there support for your position at Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items (which cites NOTDIR), which highlights verifiability, neutrality, and referencing, none of which are problems for the list items. Bongomatic 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe that that list of advantages and disadvantages is meant to be comprehensive; therefore, the fact that the list in question does not meet any of the listed disadvantages is not an argument for keeping it. Meanwhile, which advantages do you feel the list meets? As for the "listed items" standards, that seems to be directed towards lists whose criteria for inclusion may be vague or arbitrary. I am not arguing that the criteria for inclusion in this list is vague or unclear, so it's only natural that you won't find support for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items. The mere fact that criteria for inclusion in a list are clear is not in and of itself a justification for the list; otherwise we could have List of Sesame Street characters whose names contain the letter G. To put it another way: I am not challenging that if the list exists, it is appropriate to include Bacon explosion on the list, which is what Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items is directed towards (it is, I agree, verifiable, neutral, and referenced that Bacon explosion is a dish that contains bacon). I am challenging whether the list should exist at all, and Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items is silent on that matter. Chuck (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- There could be hundreds of bacon recipes, a Google search reveals two bacon cookbooks. The list could possibly include thousands of redlinks and will be permanently incomplete. It seems too trivial to have a list, we could also have a List of apricot dishes or a List of chicken dishes, but that would be too broad and trivial, the best place for ingredient lists is the Wikibooks Cookbook. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, a list of dishes would not typically appear in a cookbook (I just checked several popular ones). In fact, it's precisely the sort of information that would appear in a specialized, food-related encyclopedia. This is relevant, as the core principles of Misplaced Pages begins with the statement "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias." Bongomatic 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any article on Misplaced Pages "could possibly include thousands of redlinks". I just don't know of any article that actually does. With one exception, all of these appear to be on the list because they have an article about them in Misplaced Pages. I agree that some of these items are too trivial to merit their own article -- do we really need a page on Maple bacon donut? -- but nobody has moved to delete them. As long as people care about things like Bacon and egg pie, it will be a blue linked term. Mandsford (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, a list of dishes would not typically appear in a cookbook (I just checked several popular ones). In fact, it's precisely the sort of information that would appear in a specialized, food-related encyclopedia. This is relevant, as the core principles of Misplaced Pages begins with the statement "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias." Bongomatic 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- There could be hundreds of bacon recipes, a Google search reveals two bacon cookbooks. The list could possibly include thousands of redlinks and will be permanently incomplete. It seems too trivial to have a list, we could also have a List of apricot dishes or a List of chicken dishes, but that would be too broad and trivial, the best place for ingredient lists is the Wikibooks Cookbook. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe that that list of advantages and disadvantages is meant to be comprehensive; therefore, the fact that the list in question does not meet any of the listed disadvantages is not an argument for keeping it. Meanwhile, which advantages do you feel the list meets? As for the "listed items" standards, that seems to be directed towards lists whose criteria for inclusion may be vague or arbitrary. I am not arguing that the criteria for inclusion in this list is vague or unclear, so it's only natural that you won't find support for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items. The mere fact that criteria for inclusion in a list are clear is not in and of itself a justification for the list; otherwise we could have List of Sesame Street characters whose names contain the letter G. To put it another way: I am not challenging that if the list exists, it is appropriate to include Bacon explosion on the list, which is what Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items is directed towards (it is, I agree, verifiable, neutral, and referenced that Bacon explosion is a dish that contains bacon). I am challenging whether the list should exist at all, and Misplaced Pages:Lists#Listed items is silent on that matter. Chuck (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- ← (After edit conflict) This isn't an argument for inclusion but I wanted to point out that there is a List of egg dishes and List of rice dishes. Having redlinks isn't the end of the world, and that should be easily curtailed by Misplaced Pages:Red link where it says to write the article first before adding an entry to the list. Also ingredient lists being more appropriate for WikiBooks cookbook is not a criterion for deletion. --kelapstick (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- The List of rice dishes went through an instructive AfD process. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of rice dishes to see the likely outcome. Bongomatic 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It only takes a quick glance at the article to see that this provides more encyclopedic information than any category could, so the nomination reason doesn't hold water. I'll have to take a break from editing now because this is making me hungry in the way that only the mention of bacon can. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per the cogent arguments made by most everyone and especially Mandsford. Phil, I share your sentiments. Come by the house tomorrow morning for grits and bacon. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous arguments. Normally there are reasons to delete an article which can be countered with reasons to keep it. I can see the reasons to keep but the delete side is tantalisingly close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh, and there is at least one other bacon cook book: Seduced by Bacon... Bigger digger (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Any article about bacon is ipso facto notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete WP is not a cookbook. The list can not be encyclopedic, as bacon can be added to almost anything, including the Monty Python "eggs, bacon, Spam and Spam" dish. And saying one likes bacon does not actually count as a reason for "keep". Lastly, "list" and "category" may be synergistic if each comprises a "limited universe" of items. As this list is not so limited, while the category is limited to the articles found notable, it is clear that synergism is not a valid claim here. I think I may create a "List of dishes with salt in them" if this stays <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)