Wikipedia: Wikipedia utilities/Pages to be rewritten or deleted Talk

Comments:

Much of the above is Seb's WikiProject Concepts stuff. I have no objection if he wants to create pages like that, I'm only asking that he doesn't litter the main Wikipedia namespace with them.

And then there is someone (I don't know who) who has been added articles on all different sorts of "organizations", with the problem that the articles are just a priori generalizations, and in some cases are obviously wrong. I've already deleted a few of these questionable articles (e.g. homicidal organization), and the only reason I don't delete them is I don't want to lose what little useful content they have in them. -- SJK

I generally agree with the above conclusions: I think we should not invent categories but use well-established ones in choosing article topics. The way to proceed, I suppose, is to try to communicate with the person or people who are responsible for creating the pages, explain the problems, and see if you can come to a consensus about it. I think nearly everyone can agree, indeed, that we should not invent categories but use well-established ones in choosing article topics; and that ought to be enough to convince people to take some appropriate action. --LMS

Go ahead and delete them. Innovation doesn't have a place here. Sorry it took me a little while to realize it. --Seb

But do the articles contain any useful encyclopedic content that should be moved elsewhere first? --LMS

They are mostly content free. Of the information they have, its mostly wrong (e.g. the claim that the Dewey Decimal System is a hierarchy; library scientists consider it to be fundamentally enumerative, though it has some hierarchial features). And a lot of the information is simply links to other articles. The only one I wouldn't delete is organization, not because the content there is any good, but simply because "organization" might be a good candidate for an article title. -- SJK

Hmmmm, now data hierarchies are what I do professionally. The Dewey Decimal System is one one the most concrete examples of a formalised data hierarchy there is. If the system is only "fundamentally enumerative", what is the point of it? It exists to organise books into groups and subgroups and further subgroups, under well defined parentage. It is certainly not heterarchical. Also, you are incorrect in saying that these headings are being invented - they are all (with the exception of "containment hierarchy" - I don't know that one) very familiar to me (in the sense that they all standard terms in dimensional data theory). Refer Ralph Kimball The Data Warehouse Toolkit, Macos Metadata and various other texts for both discussion of the Dewey system and hierarchical concepts. (Go to www.dwinfocenter.org for links to the texts) I'd say leave them and see where Seb is going with it. - MMGB

: The Dewey Decimal Classification is mostly enumerative. Sure, it is hierarchial in part, but the hierarchy is pretty shallow compared to some other library classification systems, and it resorts a lot to simple listing (enumeration). If you are looking for a classification which is hierarchial, Colon or UDC would probably be better examples (although they are also faceted to varying degrees). I suppose whether or not it is hierarchial depends on what field you are approaching it from. -- SJK

Here's the question: are terms like

just Seb's idiosyncratic jargon or are they actually used in your field as technical terms with specific meanings? --LMS

I would say that the terms "immediate parent" and "immediate descendent" are more common, but these are certainly terms that are used in the Data warehousing literature. I have never formally studied the theory of relations directly, although I would assume that much of what I do is a practical application of those concepts, and also the concepts of set theory. If Seb is presenting ideas from within the framework of current data modelling theory then fine. If he is presenting ideas as global concepts about relational theory in general, then we will need to get the opinion of someone more knowledgeable of tha subject. - MMGB

And, given that such a person is not likely to appear on the scene anytime soon (right?) we might as well just delete the articles and let such a person start afresh when he or she arrives. Eh? --LMS

I'd agree the headings weren't just made up. But "Wikipedia is not a Dictionary" -- can you actually say enough about them individually to warrant their own article? I don't think we want an article on "immediate subordinate" or whatever; we should just have it in "relational theory"... -- SJK