| Revision as of 07:53, 31 January 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:19, 7 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Delete''' as unmaintainable and overly broad. ] 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as unmaintainable and overly broad. ] 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per above. -- ] 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per above. -- ] 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', unmaintainable indiscriminate list (]). --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', unmaintainable indiscriminate list (]). --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. Why do people create these articles? ] 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. Why do people create these articles? ] 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per Deleuze. ] 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per Deleuze. ] 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:19, 7 February 2023
- 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 of the nomination was delete. Jaranda 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
List of food topics
Listcurft. Certainly incomplete and potenially very huge list. Would work much better as a category, if there isn't one already. -- Koffieyahoo 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unwieldy, indiscriminate collection of information.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Zos 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unmaintainable and overly broad. Deleuze 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unmaintainable indiscriminate list (WP:NOT). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Why do people create these articles? Rob 13:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Deleuze. Green caterpillar 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Food-related is pretty straight-forward, and discriminant. The purpose of the list is to present all the food-related topics on the 'pedia, which is useful for monitoring the subject area as per Misplaced Pages:List guideline. The subject "food-related" is of much narrower scope than the list of mathematics articles, which has grown so large that it now consists of 27 component lists (one for each letter of the alphabet, and another for digits)!
| Part of a series on | ||
| Mathematics | ||
|---|---|---|
|
||
 Mathematics Portal | ||
The list for the letter A alone is larger than all the lists I've built combined!!! And then there's the mathematics topic lists and the list of mathematicians (which is 166 kilobytes long!). That food shouldn't be afforded similar treatment doesn't make any sense, especially considering the central role it plays in all of our lives. If the approach is okay to take on the far broader subjects of Mathematics, Philosophy, Biology, etc., then why isn't it appropriate for the narrower subject of food? Your stance doesn't make any sense. Please explain. --Transhumanist 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- What I think is unmaintainable is that there are way too many food-related topics, because one could include list of foods, food agencies, meal types, etc. Green caterpillar 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you think that is too many articles? And what is unmaintainable about it having that many articles? What difficulty in managing the page does that present? As pointed out above, Math is far larger, and those guys maintain it just fine. What makes you think that this list will not be any easier to maintain than the huge multi-scope list of mathematics articles? The Math articles list contains thousands upon thousands of links. So how can you conclude that the food list will be too large, when it won't be anywhere near the size of Math? --Transhumanist 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, someone could distantly relate almost any article to food, and there would be a lot of disagreement on what should be on that list. For example, users might debate whether articles like feces should be on the list. I predict there would be a lot of confusion and edit wars too.
- Why do you think that is too many articles? And what is unmaintainable about it having that many articles? What difficulty in managing the page does that present? As pointed out above, Math is far larger, and those guys maintain it just fine. What makes you think that this list will not be any easier to maintain than the huge multi-scope list of mathematics articles? The Math articles list contains thousands upon thousands of links. So how can you conclude that the food list will be too large, when it won't be anywhere near the size of Math? --Transhumanist 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- However, I am thinking of a solution. If we were to make this a category, and make sub-categories, such as "List of fruit-related articles" and "List of Spanish foods related articles", an agreement might be reached. Green caterpillar 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's much more clearly defined what a mathematics article is than what a food topic is. A mathematics article is an article that is mainly about math. What is a food topic? Does it include farming related articles? Does it include articles about every plant or amimal you can eat? Does it include every dish that has it's own article? I'm if we start to include all all those it's easy to make a list that is longer than the mathematics list within a few days.
- Moreover, the mathematics list is partially used in the development of better mathematics articles, the food topics list isn't (at the moment). -- Koffieyahoo 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is there already a category for this? If not, it could, as you said, be made into one. Green caterpillar 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you're referring to "food topics", no, I don't think there is one category for it. However, my guess is that there are already a few categories out there that would cover the whole spectrum. -- Koffieyahoo 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Such as... Green caterpillar 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- From the top of my head Category:Agriculture and Category:Food and drink (including all its subcategories). -- Koffieyahoo 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we could merge this list into that category. Green caterpillar 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- My guess is that most of it is already there, but it's worth going through the list to make sure. -- Koffieyahoo 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would now suggest that whatever is not there we put, and then just delete it. It would sort of be like merging. Green caterpillar 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- My guess is that most of it is already there, but it's worth going through the list to make sure. -- Koffieyahoo 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we could merge this list into that category. Green caterpillar 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- From the top of my head Category:Agriculture and Category:Food and drink (including all its subcategories). -- Koffieyahoo 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Such as... Green caterpillar 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you're referring to "food topics", no, I don't think there is one category for it. However, my guess is that there are already a few categories out there that would cover the whole spectrum. -- Koffieyahoo 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is there already a category for this? If not, it could, as you said, be made into one. Green caterpillar 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Transhumanist, what do you think? Green caterpillar 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that Transhumanist has a list of food topics in his userspace. Perhaps he could add missing info to the categories, and we just delete this one. Any objections? Green caterpillar 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.