Category talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Untitled

Removed article from several categories, as the SSCS is not a subcategory of eco-terroism and others. They are related but not suitable parent categories.

2nd time: Removed inappropriate parent categories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sub categories

Please do not place sub categories for this cateogry which do not belong. Like eco terrorism. Is anyone making the case that SSCS is a sub division of eco-terrorism? I'm removing it for that reason. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also.. there is a loop of subcategories going on. You can open SSCS sub category infinitely because it refers back to itself. Will someone smarter than me please fix this? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. looks like I inadvertently caused that one while trying to fix the inappropriate sub-categories. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To be more clear, there were multiple issues here that required attention.

• Parent categories were labeled as "related topics". That was fixed by changing the label to "parent categories".
• Open for debate, certain parent categories are inappropriate. For instance, eco-terrorism is not the appropriate parent category for Sea shepherd. I've stated as much and no one has made a case for why it should be. The more I ask, the more a certain editor uses personal attacks and bullying. Still, no one is offering an opinion on appropriate parent cats. Opinions? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I misunderstood the rule. See below. Thanks to the civil editors below for explaining. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction/text description of the category

• With respect to the heading text/introduction to the category, it should state the related article, rather than having a circular link back to this category. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

COOL! A response :) Thank you. I was starting to loose faith. Let's make that change happen. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already done. That's how it had been. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Though now I've standardized it with the {{Cat main}} template. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now. When you edit the article, it says "related articles" and then lists the categories. I thought that was intending to say that the categories were related articles. That's why I was trying to change it. I misunderstood. SO What do we do about the parent categories that no one is making a case for that don't look like appropriate parent cats? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I see some categories that are controversial (i.e, eco-terrorism), I don't see any that are outright inappropriate. I'd have to look through the text of the SSCS article to see which news organizations have labelled it, but my gut feeling is that category will be supported. I'd say if there are specific categories you disagree with, discuss them and explain your reasoning here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

…And I'm right about Category:Eco-terrorism. The FBI calls them an eco-terrorist organization; Greenpeace's comments about them imply that they're pirates and terrorists. The category is supported. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And please keep in mind that the description is very clear that we are not flat out labeling them as eco-terrorists at the eco-terrorism category per Wikipedia:Categorization#Content of category pages. I don't see it as being inappropriate at all since it is part of the tree that is easily navigable. SSCS fits within he scope of any article or cat discussing eco-terrorism (even if some people say they are not eco-terrorists) since the sources discuss the group being accused as being such. Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The liturature definately demonstrates that notable experts have publicly called them eco-terorist. The issue I do not understand, and maybe you can clarify is as folows: After long debates, it became clear that the SSCS article was to be included in the category of eco-terrorism, so the article had a link at the bottom to a "related article" which was argued over and over but again stayed due to the excellent citations.. Then someone had the idea to make a SSCS category and make eco-terrorism a parent category of that category and invoke a wiki policy of redundancy to remove the related link at the bottom of the mainpage. I've been trying to understand how it's appropriate to say that it's a good "parent article" for SSCS when they can't even say it's related. Also, why would SSCS be a sub-category of eco-terrorism rather than just a related article of eco-terrorism? OR am I misunderstanding the purpose of subcategories? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a category, and the rule of thumb is that no article should be in a sub and parent category. Because all the categories were migrated from the SSCS article to the SSCS category, per the category guidelines, the article Sea Shepherd Conservation Society should belong only to Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Before this category was created, the SSCS article belonged directly to all the categories in question, such as Category:Eco-terrorism. Now, the SSCS category is in the eco-terrorism category, the SSCS article is in the SSCS category, and the SSCS category is thus indirectly in the eco-terrorism category. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not understand that rule.. so in general, once a category is created for an article, the related articles are all migrated off the mainpage to that category page? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The topic has to warrant having a category. In this case, there are enough articles related to SSCS (their boats, Whale Wars, the sinking(s) of one of their boats, etc.) that SSCS warrants its own category. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.. OK, once that happens, all related articles then get migrated to the category page? Also Also, I don't understand "Because all the categories were migrated from the SSCS article to the SSCS category... the article Sea Shepherd Conservation Society should belong only to Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society" Are you saying there should be only one parent category for the article but that that the articles category can have as many parents are are related? Thanks for explaining, I think I'm getting it. :D 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reinstated parent category for SSCS, agreeing with C.Fred above. See main article for that discussion. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Single issue subcategories?

I've removed several single issue subcats whose sole purpose seems to be to keep unwanted words off the main articles. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not the reason the categories are here, as has been explained at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss at SSCS talk

To avoid edit wars, before reverting, adding contentions subcats or removing, please discuss at SSCS talk where a discussoin on this topic already exists. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your own advice, you've made multiple reversions here of appropriate categorisation,[1][2][3][4][5] even after having been warned on your talk page.[6] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary additions

Please avoid adding categories that are already in the main article. There is no need for it here as well. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The subcategories are here for purposes that have been explained, at length by multiple editors at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)