Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting results:
"Keep" (2): SchmuckyTheCat, Dr.frog
"Delete" (4): ContiE, Azkar, Andros 1337, Kbdank71
Consensus is to delete
I'm not sure if this category is needed at all, but the name is at least inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 22:49, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Insulting name. Unnecessary, subjective, categorization. --Azkar 01:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Extremely POV. Andros 1337 12:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 13:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep In what other category do you put both durians and garlic? Two foods which are delights sent by the gods for our pleasure, but they stink. There is no POV saying durians stink! Is this some rampant PCness over food? If Oprah runs a show about stinky durians is she going to get sued by the Durian Farmers of Texas? Saying durians stink is like saying water is wet, that's not subjective. I love this category! SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why is garlic on the list and not onion? IMO onions smell worse! Andros 1337 22:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As I mention in my comment below, the garlic article explicitly talks about the smell of the food. The onion article only talks about why onions make you cry, and not about them having a bad smell. Dr.frog 20:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, the garlic article explicitly talks about the smell because you added that to the text as you were adding the category. --Conti|✉ 17:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- It is true that I added the reference to "stinking rose" to the garlic article, but the separate article stinking rose with the reference to garlic already existed, and the garlic article also already contained this description: "The bulb has a strong and characteristic odor and an acrid taste, and yields an offensively smelling oil...." Sounds stinky to me! :-P Dr.frog 17:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying garlic does not smell bad. But the title of the category is clearly POV, and the usefulness of the category is quite low as well. The latter is just my opinion of course.. --Conti|✉ 17:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- When I created the category, I did try to think of whether there was a better title for it that didn't use the word "stinky". But something like "foods with a strong fragrance that some people find unpleasant" seemed too long and cumbersome, and I'm not sure something like "foods with strong odors" would be quite right because it would also include foods that smell *good*. As for the usefulness of this category, when I was sorting out a gazillion food articles into other categories, I was very much amused when I ran across the surströmming and lutefisk articles, got curious about other stinky foods, and thought I would share the results of my research with others who find the subject of weird foods entertaining. Yes, it's a somewhat silly category, but how many other silly lists and categories are on Wikipedia? Dr.frog 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying garlic does not smell bad. But the title of the category is clearly POV, and the usefulness of the category is quite low as well. The latter is just my opinion of course.. --Conti|✉ 17:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- It is true that I added the reference to "stinking rose" to the garlic article, but the separate article stinking rose with the reference to garlic already existed, and the garlic article also already contained this description: "The bulb has a strong and characteristic odor and an acrid taste, and yields an offensively smelling oil...." Sounds stinky to me! :-P Dr.frog 17:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, the garlic article explicitly talks about the smell because you added that to the text as you were adding the category. --Conti|✉ 17:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- As I mention in my comment below, the garlic article explicitly talks about the smell of the food. The onion article only talks about why onions make you cry, and not about them having a bad smell. Dr.frog 20:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why is garlic on the list and not onion? IMO onions smell worse! Andros 1337 22:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I created this category, so of course I want to keep it! All of the articles linked into this category explicitly mention that the food in question has a characteristic strong, objectionable odor. Stinky tofu obviously stinks, garlic is called the stinking rose, the kimchi article compares its odor to shit, durian smells so bad that it's forbidden to carry it on some airlines or the Singapore public transit system, the surstromming and lutefisk articles make no bones about the overwhelming stench of the foods in question, etc. If others find the idea of stinky foods insulting or POV, I suggest you look at the individual articles in this category instead of the category itself. Dr.frog 20:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that these foods have a characteristic odor is not at issue. It's the "objectionable" part that makes it POV. Same with "stinky". Objectionable and stinky according to who? I know people that like the smell of garlic. Since, as you say, this category is based upon that description, it should be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV isn't No POV, it means POV must be explained. The article stink is very clear that odors are subjective not only to people, but to circumstance. Consensus exists not only on wikipedia, but in real life as well, and consensus is that these foods stink. Food has no emotions to offend, so saying so isn't insulting to anyone, in the way that adding hippies to Category:Stinky People would be insulting, even though true. SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As per NPOV: The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all. NPOV is indeed No POV. NPOV doesn't matter if someone, anyone, or no-one will be insulted. Saying that Hippies, or food, is stinky, is advocating one Point of View, and therefore is not NPOV. --Kbdank71 17:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That sentence describes NPOV, the noun. The NPOV, the very idea of it, is the subject of that sentence. It says that NPOV is not NoPOV, NPOV is not a POV. That's a subtlety that the rest of that entire article attempt to explain. The rest of the article pretty plainly states that the way to reach NPOV is to explain disputes, not delete them, not hide them, and not weasely intermediate positions. Read the words of the Creator God Jimbo "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."' Note Jimbo specifically disclaims subjectivism as being offlimits to NPOV. People believe that these foods are stinky, by consensus, as indicated by the text of the articles themselves. The NPOV article also disclaims assumed POV as being grounds for deletion. There are hundreds of "POV", even objectionable (to a substantial minority), categories (hello, Category:Pseudoscience) but that happens to be the best classification as well. SchmuckyTheCat 19:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As per NPOV: The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all. NPOV is indeed No POV. NPOV doesn't matter if someone, anyone, or no-one will be insulted. Saying that Hippies, or food, is stinky, is advocating one Point of View, and therefore is not NPOV. --Kbdank71 17:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I like the smell of garlic, too; same with kimchi and fermented black beans. However, I think it is a fact that many people do find the strong smells of these foods unpleasant, and heck, even I find the stink kind of overpowering at times. Dr.frog 18:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, and agree with you. However, it's still a POV of "many people" that the foods are "stinky". --Kbdank71 18:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As I've pointed out before, if your problem is that you think labelling garlic (or any other food included in this category) as "stinky" is POV, then you should be asking for deletion of the articles about those foods instead of the category as a whole, because all I have done is identify existing articles about foods already described in Wikipedia as being "stinky". Dr.frog 21:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, and agree with you. However, it's still a POV of "many people" that the foods are "stinky". --Kbdank71 18:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- NPOV isn't No POV, it means POV must be explained. The article stink is very clear that odors are subjective not only to people, but to circumstance. Consensus exists not only on wikipedia, but in real life as well, and consensus is that these foods stink. Food has no emotions to offend, so saying so isn't insulting to anyone, in the way that adding hippies to Category:Stinky People would be insulting, even though true. SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that these foods have a characteristic odor is not at issue. It's the "objectionable" part that makes it POV. Same with "stinky". Objectionable and stinky according to who? I know people that like the smell of garlic. Since, as you say, this category is based upon that description, it should be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty for an inexistant bird family. How fitting. Circeus 16:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Empty. --Kbdank71 18:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.