Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Fundamental
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- Redundant with Category:Main page. --Eequor 04:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like an opportunity for fundamentalists to argue and not much else. Nathan 05:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant. -- Mic 06:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Don't delete. As Wikipedia:Category_schemes shows, there is more than one way to split up the world. We currently have multiple competing heirarchies of categories being filled out. This page might (should, if you ask me) be used as a canonical list of their top-level members, a sort of opposite to Category:Orphaned categories. That's a very different purpose than presenting a user-friendly front page. The associated talk page is also storing all the discussion so far about Category TOCs, which I just moved in from the three different places they started up. So let's at least allow this page to stabilize and the discussion to continue a bit. If we have consensus on the talk page that anything we want to do here should be done on the main page instead, that's fine. But the category system isn't quite ready for prime time yet; it's still practically brand new. -- Beland 05:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but hate the name. Seeing as nobody has come up with a better name yet, keep, at least until a better name is picked. And no, this has nothing to do with fundamentalism. --ssd 13:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Why, I think it does. Seems kind of silly to me to categorize what is "fundamental," whether you are talking about philosophy religion, or human knowledge. To me this catagory reads as the latter. Nathan 19:10, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
- What's silly about identifying navigational nodes that have no parent? This listing doesn't elevate one type or piece of knowledge over any other; multiple overlapping heirarchies are able to form and will get equal treatment here. So I hardly can see what it has to do with religious or philosophical fundamentalism. The point is just to provide a starting place if anyone is interested in browsing through the various heirarchies from top to bottom, and also an ending place if they are browsing from bottom to top. -- Beland 03:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I would say the name of this category is silly, except that neither I nor anyone else has come up with a better name. If you object because of the name, COME UP WITH A BETTER ONE. --ssd 05:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- What's silly about identifying navigational nodes that have no parent? This listing doesn't elevate one type or piece of knowledge over any other; multiple overlapping heirarchies are able to form and will get equal treatment here. So I hardly can see what it has to do with religious or philosophical fundamentalism. The point is just to provide a starting place if anyone is interested in browsing through the various heirarchies from top to bottom, and also an ending place if they are browsing from bottom to top. -- Beland 03:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Why, I think it does. Seems kind of silly to me to categorize what is "fundamental," whether you are talking about philosophy religion, or human knowledge. To me this catagory reads as the latter. Nathan 19:10, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)