Category talk:Tuning Forks/Requested move discussion

Requested Move
Move: When I gave more thought to linking each Tuning Fork back to this page, I realized that it should be a category, not just a simple page. --Alephnot 03:32, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Do Not Move: The page is sufficient the way it is. A category is unnecessary. --Chrisjander 05:15, 17 February 2007 (EST)


 * Comment: To elaborate; this page already has a list of all the tuning forks. Having another list at the bottom is superfluous.  However, I do think this should be linked to each tuning fork page, as well as somewhere on the SMN page (I will add this myself, since it's probably protected) and maybe as well on the avatar pages. I like this article; I just don't think tuning forks warrant a category. --Chrisjander 05:19, 17 February 2007 (EST)


 * Question: I'm not sure I understand why you say that they don't "warrant" a category. Are you concerned about "using up" all the categories, or something?  A category is for relating pages by inclusion into a particular group; in this case, the group is "Tuning Forks", and in other cases it's things like Category:Keys or Category:Sarutabaruta.  When someone reads a particular Tuning Fork page and looks at the bottom for the list of categories (i.e. groups of which the item is a member), then why should Category:Tuning Forks not show up?  Why should they instead have to hunt through the various links on the page, to find this list?
 * I agree that it is unnecessary to list all sixteen pages, again, in alphabetical order, at the bottom, but I do not agree that this tiny drawback outweighs the usefulness of this being a category. --Alephnot 13:55, 17 February 2007 (EST)


 * Comment: You give good examples, so I'll explain my percieved difference. The benefit of a category is to link like-items together, and to have a single place where they all are compiled in an easy way (by adding the category to the item page).  If all the tuning forks are linked to this page, and all the tuning forks are listed on this page, the functionality of a category has already been satisfied.  Secondly, there is no projected need for additional tuning forks (SE does not seem to want to create new avatars that use tuning forks, as seen with Fenrir and Diablos, they're using a different sort of quest),  so there will be no projected additions to the category, unlike with categories like Keys, which they add new things to reguarly (when new areas/quests are added).  Since there is such a small number of tuning forks, and no projected growth, the convenience of a category is outweighed by the fact that all of the work is already done.  If SE was going to periodically add new tuning forks, I could see the need for a category, as it would provide us with an easy means to group them together without having to rework the page everytime.  As is, this does not seem to be needed.  That's why I consider it unnecessary for this to be a category; I think the page is sufficient as is.  I hope this adequately explains my reasoning.  --Chrisjander 14:52, 17 February 2007 (EST)


 * Comment: I appreciate your explanation, but I'm still not convinced. I agree that the cross-linking functionality of categories can be achieved in other ways, but they don't provide the same level of consistency and structure, and that isn't a reason against making this a category, anyway.  I also agree that it isn't particularly likely that more Tuning Forks will be added, in future updates, but this isn't a reason against making this a category, either.  In fact, Category:Ancient Currency seems rather similar to my proposed Category:Tuning Forks in both its smallish tally of items and the low liklihood that more items will be added, but it is still a useful category.


 * What I'm hoping you can explain is why you are still opposed to making this a category. Since I still have no clue why categories seem to be considered inherently evil, I am still likely to come across other groups of things that belong together, in the future, and simply create a new category, for them.  In fact, if you hadn't spiffed the page up, like you did (TY, BTW ^^), I would simply have created the new Tuning Forks category and added all the items, myself, but I requested the move, instead, because I wanted to preserve your edit history. --Alephnot 00:31, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Resolution: Move: I lack sufficient resolve to continue this discussion, and concede the field to you. If you don't mind, in a day or two (to give you time to respond about your preference) I will create Category:Tuning Forks and place the entirety of the Edit History on the talk page, with a rather insistent note that it not be removed. Also, if you prefer, you can do this yourself. Once it has been "moved" (since the move function does not actually allow me to move a article to a category), please place a delete tag on this page so I can get around to removing it (although in all likelihood, I'll probably just make it a redirect to the category). --Chrisjander 22:32, 21 February 2007 (EST)