Forum:CT:Proposal to abolish the categorization policy

Yes, you heard me right. I’m proposing that we abolish the categorization policy. Let me give you a bit of background on this policy. Back in the day, in 2006 and early 2007, there were thousands upon thousands of articles that didn’t have a category. It was a disorganized mess. In the summer of 2007, though, it was decided to delete all articles that didn’t have a category. Thousands of articles were deleted.

In September 2007, the categorization policy was adopted to continue enforcing the need for categories. With the old version of the policy, we actually deleted articles after a day if they didn’t have a category. It was absolutely ridiculous, but that was the nature of the wiki then. When we got rid of the deletion aspect a year or so ago, we felt we still needed the categorization policy, so we continue to have it in its current form.

Anyway, now that you have some background, I’m still chugging away at what will be my proposal for a Manual of Style rewrite, but I want to have this discussion now so I know how to proceed with the categorization part of the proposal. It also just makes sense to do this now anyway.

Most of what’s in the policy can be summed up in one line or so for each segment. For example:


 * 1) All articles are required to be properly categorized.
 * 2) “Images by” categories may only contain user-made or significantly user-modified images.
 * 3) User-based categorizes, excluding “Articles by,” are not allowed.
 * 4) Novels, novellas, and short stories are required to be at least 40,000, 7,500, and 1,000 words long, respectively, in narrative content.
 * 5) Chapters of narrative works must be placed into Category:Fanwork segments or their own story-specific chapter category, such as Category:Chapters of The Chosen One.

For further explanation on what all those mean, users would be linked to the categorization tutorial (the contents of which would be considered policy, but not actually referred to as such). By going with what I just wrote above, it’s FAR less intimidating for people than viewing some overly-large policy like the categorization policy is now. All of the fluff that’s currently in the categorization policy would be turned into a tutorial, which makes users think "they're helping me" instead of "too many rules, DO NOT WANT," on how to categorize articles, narratives, etc. It would go over everything the new category segment of the Manual of Style said.

In regards to the intimidation factor that I just mentioned, having a policy like this is also intimidating for people. Not only do countless policies scare people off (in regards to when said policies can actually be consolidated), but a policy like this, with so much information saying “you must do this, you must do that,” just screams instruction creep. It’s best to have the aforementioned few lines of text be put into the Manual of Style and make the rest of this policy a tutorial.

This proposal will last for at least one week, until Sunday, October 18, unless more or less time is needed. All matters of the voting policy apply. Please be civil. - Brandon Rhea  (talk) 21:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Abolish SWF:CAT and add basics to the MOS (+1)

 * 1) Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 21:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)