Category talk:Lists of things considered unusual

Lists Category‑class

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Justification and name of category[edit]

Context. This discussion is about a new category previously named "Category:Unusual lists". It has since been changed to the current title. -- Fyslee / talk 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding this to articles. It's a non-existant category and it is an entirely inappropriate category for Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's an inappropriate category? NJGW (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a subjective grouping instead of an objective one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "category:lists of things considered unusual" NJGW (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not good. Who considers it unusual? It is blatantly subjective and not NPOV. Do not bother categorizing lists or any article as "unusual."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you advocating the deletion of all the lists containing the word "unusual"? I'm not being flippant... List of unusual deaths has been on my watchlist for a while, and recently I've been thinking that it violates OR (this has come up in the archives it turns out, but the article has survived several Afd's). I decided to look up all the other lists with the word unusual and see what common thread there was... thought I'd try to make a category for them while I was at it. Your thoughts. NJGW (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. I am saying that your categorization of all of these lists, just because they use the word "unusual" is inappropriate. For these items to be listed as "unusual" on these lists, someone scholastic must have decided as such. The articles are fine. The categorization is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually true for all the articles. Do you advocate the deletion or renaming of articles which "someone scholastic" has not "decided as such"? NJGW (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get back to my initial statement and leave it at that: do not create Category:Unusual lists and do not add articles into it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped, but I'd still like your thoughts on this. The reason I was trying to make this category was that I was wondering if a standard of unusualness could (or should) be created. Please have a look at the discussion at List of unusual deaths. It seems that a standard for "unusual" has been discussed several times over the years, but never created (or discovered, which would be more in line with OR). This also seems to be an issue with the standards at List of unusual animal anecdotes, List of unusual personal names, List of socially unusual fictional planets, List of chemical compounds with unusual names, List of unusual units of measurement, List of cars with unusual door designs. NJGW (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Ryulong, very seriously, what policy forbids this? I'd like to see a clear policy statement or an ArbCom decision. This isn't something for one admin to decide. If there is a clear statement that forbids this, then of course it should stop, but until then, this seems like interference and an abuse of admin status. I'll assume good faith and therefore expect you to produce such evidence. -- Fyslee / talk 06:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fyslee, in the past I might have asked that question first, but these days admins seem on edge. NJGW (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective categories have always been dismissed as far as I can remember.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is subjective about articles with the word unusual in them? NJGW (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to discuss the articles. All I'm here to do was say that the categorization was inappropriate, and I am leaving it at that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is misplaced... here I'm asking what's subjective about the fact that they all contain the word "unusual", and what category name will satisfy objectivity in your mind? NJGW (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that Category:Lists of things considered unusual would work.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I resume then? NJGW (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is much more objective.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Third opinion: rather self-referential, aren't they? :-/ Xavexgoem (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought. NJGW (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was confused. I thought this was for a category of lists of unusual things... at any rate, I'm just saying that a reader is likely to determine that someone inside of WP decided something was weird. Dunno if that's really a breach of self-ref, but I agree it's too subjective. My urge to wikilawyer and cite WP:OR is huge. So huge that I do it in small fonts and pretend like I'm not :-P Xavexgoem (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was a category for lists containing the word unusual in their title. Is that really subjective? NJGW (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that'll teach me to actually read the entire dispute before commenting :-P It is an unusual category, though ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, at least you weren't an angry mastodon about it. NJGW (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralizing discussion[edit]

Many articles in this category share the common problem of lacking a proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Therefore, I suggest having some kind of tag in their talk pages redirecting such issues to here, because they likely mean just as much to the other articles as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new category[edit]

How about "Things put on top of other things"? thats highly notable, everyone does it, there is even an old British society devoted to this subject. its no more unusual than any article or list which uses the word "unusual" in it. jesus, might as well let the creators of Pokemon and Family Guy buy the wikimedia foundation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]