Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angola-related topics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-28 07:51Z

[edit]
List of Angola-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

On April 3, 2007, User:Piotrus initiated a mass AfD against hundreds of "list of topics" articles. The discussion was closed as a "procedural keep" ... there were simply too many articles to process. So, I am nominating for deletion a smaller subset of articles, grouped together due to a number of similarities; in this case, all articles in this nomination are:

lists of topics by country that:
  1. are listed alphabetically,
  2. lack ordering by topic,
  3. lack any summaries or descriptions, and
  4. lack any significant number of redlinks (i.e., they cannot be used for the purpose of article development).

I propose that the articles be deleted for the following reasons:

  1. They are inferior to existing categories in terms of organisation. They list articles alphabetically as opposed to by topic.
  2. The lists are hopelessly incomplete. They have not been maintained for a long time and given Wikipedia's rate of expansion, it's unlikely that they can be maintained. They were created before categories existed and once the category system was devised, they became obsolete.
  3. As User:Piotrus noted in his initial nomination, the lists are "are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten ... pages". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am withdrawing my recommendation to delete these articles, having overlooked the potential use of these lists in monitoring recent changes, and instead view a mix of keeping and projectifying to be the optimal solution. As others editors have already recommended deletion, the AfD cannot be speedily kept. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment - That seems to be a policy related debate: "do we really want want this type of article?" I don't think that Afd is the right place to discuss such sweeping changes. --Latebird 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (unless better alternative pages already exists). These are useful pages for several purposes, but especially for counter-vandalism using the Related Changes feature. We can't do the same with the category pages. These pages also function as a topic-specific "index" page, similar to the "index" section in most non-fiction book. --Vsion 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories also possess the Related Changes feature. They can also serve as an index page, either alphabetically, or topically using subcategories. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you use "Related Changes" to examine all the articles in the sub-categories? For example, when i tried the recent changes for Category:India [1], it only shows the changes in that specific category. Is it possible to show changes in all the thousands+ sub-categories articles? That would be a great tool to have.--Vsion 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, pending improvement of the category system. Looking at the very first item on the first list nominated for deletion, the list of topics related to Angola leads to an article about a politician named Agostinho Neto. Going in through the index of Categories, or through the main article Angola, I could not find a category linkage which took me to the article about the same individual. The category system seem sparse and not nearly fully enough linked to replace lists at this point. The same held true for other comparisons between finding a topic for other countries on the list and trying to find the same article from categories. If there is a better way to use categories, I have not found it yet, even in WP:CAT. Lists also allow redlink items and suggest the creation of the articles. which categories apparently cannot do. They also allow explanations and definitions in the introduction, to clarify what the items in the list are all about, abd they can be organized geographically, chronologically, etc.Edison 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all lists of topics by country - Why discriminate between countries? At certain stages in one's study, these lists are invaluable. Perhaps User:Piotrus has simply not had the opportunity to use these lists to do his or her studies, as I and many others have. They are really useful, and if one tries to use categories to peruse a group of topics, one must constantly shift between pages of categories; it is a very unwieldy process. As far as the "much more comprehensive list(s) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Watchlist" is concerned, it is so comprehensive as to be incomprehensible. And, in looking over the list in fine print at the top of the page, it seems that the countries are predominantly non-European......It makes no sense at all to delete these lists, I am sure if they are left in place they will grow....Why do deletion people always attack the things that other people use to get their work done? They must be the same people who go through other people's desks during the lunch hour or after everyone has left work. It is quite illogical; I am tempted to say "Keep your hands to yourself." --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assure that there is no bias against non-European countries in my nomination (perhaps in Wikipedia overall). The countries that were selected are those that meet the 4 criteria (alphabetical, no ordering by topic, no summaries, and no redlinks) I noted above. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet the list itself is biased. Not to mention, your user name, "Black falcon", is a militaristic, nationalistic symbol used by extremist regimes in Iraq and Germany in the past, a fact which makes the extant bias all the more apparent. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow... Should we call Godwin's Law on this? Barno 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the bias of the list probably reflects the overall systematic bias whereby topics related to Anglophone countries and wealthier countries are more represented. As regards my username: I had never actually considered that "black falcon" could be interpreted as a militaristic or nationalistic symbol akin to the Bundesadler or the Reichsadler. I do speak German and have resided in Germany for some years, but the German coat of arms was not the inspiration for my username. My username, and this may come across as rather anticlimactic, references a tattoo of a falcon whose color is predominantly (about 60%) black (I won't reveal on whom the tattoo exists or where). Additionally, the tattoo looks like the real bird rather than the distorted characterisations found on various coats of arms, such as here or here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it's apparent by now that an alternative method of handling these lists is needed. I think projectifying is the best solution but, rather than performing 40+ potentially controversial pagemoves or placing comments at two dozen WikiProject talk pages, I'd like to ask what (if any) solutions you could offer. As I see it, we have several options:
  1. Keep all in the mainspace.
  2. Keep some, projectify some.
  3. Projectify all.
  4. Keep some, delete some.
  5. Keep some, projectify some, delete some.
  6. Projectify some, delete some.
Which of these options (or others if I've missed any) would you suggest? If you suggest a mixed solution (e.g., keep some, projectify some), please also specify how you think individual cases should be judged (e.g., which types of articles should be kept and which projectified). I am not including "delete all" as a viable option. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the lists are left in place, they will be built over time, like the lists that are well-populated, by people who find in the Wikipedia a great place to study Africa and other countries. If they are not there then students won't be attracted to these Wikipedia areas in the first place. It takes time. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "Keep all in mainspace" to make it more accessible. Other users, readers or researchers, who are not members of that wiki-project, might find it useful as an alphabetical index. These articles are not strictly for wiki-project-use only. --Vsion 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all and improve the ones BlackFalcon has mentioned as inadequate. There might perhaps be a useful discussion somewhere on a standard arrangement within these lists.DGG 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the lists can be improved, they are still no better than categories. The latter provides a more easier way to maintain than the former, while still retaining most of the functions a list gives (including the summary function). There is not much room to improve these lists. Also, categories automatically have a standard arrangement, which is an advantage over lists (lists were merely articles). --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists and categories; apples and oranges. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't think that Afd is the right place to discuss this, but is there no way to generate such alphabetical lists automatically from the respective category trees? That would eliminate all maintenance questions. --Latebird 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Projectify. Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of India-related topics is a good example. Where there are no specific projects, put them as a sub-section of regional projects. --Ezeu 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and move them under WikiProject; and don't move if WikiProject for that country doesn't exist. I have been using such list for Thailand topics to patrol for vandals regularly. Category sucks for this purpose. We simply lose track of article if the category is removed from the article. -- Lerdsuwa 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alberta-related topics, initiated by User:Black Falcon as well. It seems the common reason cited here for keep is that these countries have active WikiProjects. I believe many of the "regions" listed in the other AfD have active WikiProjects devoted to them also. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am puzzled by the attention being paid to whether the lists have redlinks or not. If any of the people voting to delete had ever used the lists to write, they would know that redlinks can be very useful; in fact, to my mind, one of the ideas of these lists is to post important topics that may not have articles and use the list as a guide to developing a country or region's set of articles. I wonder if any deletion people ever actually write Wikipedia articles, given their ignorance of the function of these lists. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's a fair criticism. I proposed the lists for deletion, but myself have started over two dozen articles. In general, lists have more potential and can be infinitely superior to categories. However, these lists currently are not, and that was why I nominated them. I have essentially withdrawn my nomination since then (I don't consider deleting a viable option anyomre), but would like for us to come to some solution of keep, projectify, or a mix of the two. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I am actually pleased that you have essentially withdrawn your nomination. I spend most of my time on Africa-related areas, and I think that the thing of it is, is that Africa-related Wikimaterial gets less traffic than other parts of the Wikipedia, and therefore, lists don't grow and develop as quickly as one would expect if one were in another area of the Wikipedia. And, there are a lot of lists involved. I myself would spend my time sprucing them up, if there weren't such a dearth of articles in the first place, especially in corporate Africa where I like to work. I spend time writing new articles for companies on African stock indices, and generally only a tiny percentage of articles are written, and it is a vast continent. So I thank you for the essential withdrawal, and as an experienced Portal:Africa Wikipedian, I can sincerely urge patience as regards these lists. In other words, as far as a future plan is concerned, time is the best remedy; there is nothing functionally wrong with the list articles, it is just that there are fewer people working on them. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, Falcon, but I was surprised by your proposal and I am used to the slower pace here. As Brian describes in the next vote, List of Cameroon-related topics is a perfect example of a topic list that has been well maintained. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was the rather obvious pun intended (ruffle your feathers, Falcon)? :) I assure you, my feathers are unruffled and I can certainly understand the frustration at having one's efforts undermined by someone who just stumbled in on the issue (see below). I would not have suggested these lists for deletion had I thought anyone actually used them ... I (mistakenly) thought that they had been abandoned. Had I known that people still used them, I would have raised any concerns on the articles' talk pages before even considering a nomination for deletion. In fact, the only reason I encountered these lists was because I stumbled across a number of them at Category:Proposed deletion. I did not feel that deletion was entirely uncontroversial and it is readily apparent that deletion via WP:PROD would have been inappropriate. Given the use of these lists in keeping track of related changes, deleting makes no sense at all. I think an argument can still be made for projectifying, but completely deleting pages that serve a useful maintenance function is, to put it mildly, illogical. I cannot speedy close this AfD due to the fact that at least one editor has approved deletion, but I hope the admin that closes this discussion will take everything into account and close the debate as keep. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me say that Angola is one of the first countries I look at when I look at the map of Africa; I live in a sort of Portuguese-speaking area of America and I read the Chinese newspaper; Angola has now passed Saudi Arabia as the number one importer of oil to the PRC due to a number of large long term contracts, which news is just great for Angola... in looking at Karbala provincial headquarters raid, I can definitely say that what I said about your user name was definitely very antithetical; sorry. And as for me, I vow to spend time at the country topic lists so that they don't look so untended. I sometimes think that I should be involved in writing about the ongoing conflict, but I am not as qualified as the many people who already are. The black falcon is definitely a serious symbol to deal with, as per your comment above; consider also the American eagle and Polish coat of arms - it is a universal-type symbol. I struck out my accusatory comment; I am not sure about protocol as regards these discussion pages, but it should probably be deleted as it is irritating in retrospect; but then again, I wouldn't know, I am not the expert on the image of the Black Falcon. I got involved in writing about Buddhistic images of the swastika when "Swastika" was the article of the day a year or so ago - the symbol is normally rendered in pastels and is normally adorned w/floral imagery, at least that was the sitation before the 1940s - it is just not an easy discussion to participate in. When it comes to discussions of the recent past, I would prefer to just listen to European dance metal, but history is so serious. Godwin's Law definitely applies. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't find the comment irritating; rather, it made me think a little about the series of coincidences surrounding it. I speak German, have lived in Germany, and my primary interests are nationalism and civil conflict. However, despite all that, the black eagle (which is what actually appears on nationalist emblems ... I don't know of any that depict a falcon, but I digress) was not the inspiration for my name. Regarding the lists, I'm not entirely sure what to suggest. Part of me would like to see them projectified, if for no other reason that the lists won't be deleted in a future nomination by someone else. But then ... what about the other 80 lists of country-related topics in Category:Lists of topics by country? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. List of Cameroon-related topics hasn't been maintained? The what have I been doing on Wikipedia all these years? In all seriousness, if this list gets deleted, it will be a serious blow to me and my efforts to expand coverage of Cameroon on Wikipedia. The list comes from the historical dictionary on the topic, and it shows me and other editors where we need to focus our efforts. — Brian (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all these lists are extremely useful in monitoring changes. I myself use the Thailand-related list to monitor changes and vandalism of the Thai articles quite often. Also, such mass deletion like this should be discouraged. Many of these lists were created and maintained by relavent projects. Did the nominator notify the projects that their lists are going to be deleted? We can't just go around and delete the wikiprojects' works without even hearing from them. --Melanochromis 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, absolutely. Now it's not among those "blacklisted", but for example I can tell you that the List of Chad-related topics is for me of immense help in my work on Chadian articles, and I would be in great difficulty without it, because, as more generally noted by McTrixie, with these words of which I endorse every comma, "if one tries to use categories to peruse a group of topics, one must constantly shift between pages of categories; it is a very unwieldy process. As far as the "much more comprehensive list(s) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Watchlist" is concerned, it is so comprehensive as to be incomprehensible." I will only admit that the lists being organized alphabetically is a weakness, because organizing the lists topically there usefulness would be greater still.--Aldux 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to worry, the big Africa list is as essential as any other mentioned here and I would work against its deletion just the same as the individual lists; it is just that it was being foisted as a motive for deletion. Sorry. "It offers a scope and a continent-wide academic grandeur that the individual lists can only project a small part of; there are so many multinational and interregional issues involved in Africa that Panafricanists would find themselves building the list anyway were it to be absent." Etc. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that each individual list in question should absolutely be posed to the relevant WikiProjects, regional noticeboards, or wherever else there may be a grouping of editors interested in the subject. Keeping track of what does and does not exist may serve certain groups better than others, but the important part is to let the relevant editors make that decision, and not to (a) consider all of these en masse, and (b) to continue to discuss it here, with editors who tend to watch AfD or whatever instead of bringing the discussion directly to the relevant parties..LordAmeth 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lists are useful and helpful in monitoring changes to articles. I myself have been active in using and maintaining the list of Thailand-related topics and its deletion would be a huge disservice to myself and other editors. Just because it doesn't have a parent project doesn't mean it won't be maintained. — WiseKwai 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that most of those lists were created fairly recently, most of them by the same handful of people, and that many of them are either seemingly abandoned, or edited at a very low rate – can you explain how "it could be very difficult without them", especially since they are apparently being used merely moreorless as personal holding spaces for potential articles, moreover without clear and demarcate criteria? --Ezeu 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple, just consider the lists that are sizable and detailed, and assume that the lists that haven't reached that status just need some time. As far as clear and demarcate criteria are concerned, the number of articles on Chad or Equatorial Guinea, for instance, is so low in the first place, that merely putting every article that relates to the country in the list results in an easily manageable list; the title of the article is clear and demarcate enough at this point in time; the reason being that we just don't have enough sincere people working on Africa-related material in the Wikipedia.. At least, that is my experience from working on the articles. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is good advice. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Angola-related_topics&oldid=1068861813"