Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:18, 18 December 2013 editVegaswikian (talk \| contribs)270,510 edits →Is creating a new policy the proper result of a CFD?: Forgot a big one← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:58, 19 December 2013 edit undoTimrollpickering (talk \| contribs)Administrators352,505 edits →Is creating a new policy the proper result of a CFD?Next edit →
Line 87:		Line 87:
	:I don't think we have ''ever'' limited CFD discussions to a dualistic choice of "Keep" or "Delete". Other options should ''always'' be explored. The question is simply what terms we should use for those other options. Personally, I think "'''Clean up'''" is a more positive sounding term than "'''Depopulate'''"... but they effectively mean the same thing. ] (]) 15:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)		:I don't think we have ''ever'' limited CFD discussions to a dualistic choice of "Keep" or "Delete". Other options should ''always'' be explored. The question is simply what terms we should use for those other options. Personally, I think "'''Clean up'''" is a more positive sounding term than "'''Depopulate'''"... but they effectively mean the same thing. ] (]) 15:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
	::Yea, the close options are based on the consensus in the discussion and not limited to keep or delete. We have had merge, dual upmerge, triple upmerge, split, listify, rename, cleanup, cleanup and bring it back, convert to an article along with others. ] (]) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)		::Yea, the close options are based on the consensus in the discussion and not limited to keep or delete. We have had merge, dual upmerge, triple upmerge, split, listify, rename, cleanup, cleanup and bring it back, convert to an article along with others. ] (]) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

			For the record this stems from two discussions - ] which was closed by another admin as to not include individuals & organisations in that category, and ] which I closed, finding consensus for an across the board consistent position and for applying the same inclusion/exclusion criteria.
			CFD discussions often go into the contents as well as the name and existance of a category; there are far more outcomes than Keep, Delete and Rename.
			Consensus can change but in such a fraught are it would only be a lasting change from a subsequent discussion. One individual declaring they disagree with the arrangement is insufficient grounds to overturn the status quo. ] (]) 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:58, 19 December 2013

Shortcut

WT:CFD

Archives
c. July–December 2004 c. December 2004 – May 2005 c. May–September 2005 c. October–December 2005 January – 4 April 2006 April–June 2006 June–August 2006 August 2006 – January 2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Where is the policy to notify category creators of a discussion here?

The existence of a policy to notify creators of a category is being raised at deletion review. I'm not aware of any such policy. Is anyone here aware of it? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not have a policy requiring such notification. The closest we come is at WP:AfD, which says:

Notifying substantial contributors to the article: While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. (italics mine for emphasis)

While we do not have a similar statement in the CfD instructions, I think it safe to say that the same would apply for CfD nominations... it's not required, but it is considered courteous to do. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that it is courteous, but many do not agree with adding to the burden of CfD nominators, noting that CfD is maintenance work and not content deleting. So, we think a bot notification would be good, as long as it didn't notify other bots or anyone on the opt-out list, which is to be seeded with Kbdank71. Category speedy renamers, who are then recorded as the renamed category creators, probably don't want their talk pages flooded with every subsequent rename nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Making such a requirement would make CfD more difficult. The fact of the matter is it is much easier to create a category than an article. Articles need sources, at least in most cases, categories don't. Articles we can tell who added the content. Categories, it is much harder. You have to go to each article, and hunt through its history to see who added the categories. Categories are also much more likely to have been renamed than articles, making it nearly impossible to figure out who the actual creator is. There are higher levels of being a verified user to create articles than categories. Lastly, an article has content, a category has articles. The whole dynamics are different. There are lots of articles I have seen that were downright trivial, that had notices saying the subject needs more sources, that were on people who seem not to meet any notability requirements, but with a 4 step process I just don't feel the motivation to nominate them for deletion. A bad article just sits there, but does not disrupt much. A trivial category, like one of the hundreds of unneeded awards categories we have, can clutter up articles with lots of unneeded categories. Anyway, articles are normally discussed on a case by case basis. Categories, half the time nominations of one category get shot down on procedural grounds. Just imagine if the person who had nominated all 100+ old fooian categories for rename had had to notify the creators of all those categories. We might still be plagued with Category:Old Dragons being one of the ones Christopher Tolkien is in, because the effort to fix the problem would have been too great.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It takes less time to post a notice on a category creator's Talk Page or the relevant WikiProject than it does to submit a CfD proposal. It is not onerous and because Editors working at CfD are not omnipotent, discussions need the input from people who are knowledgeable about the parent & child categories and where they fit in the larger category structure. We can't look at a single category in isolation but need to understand its context.

Above all, posting notices should not be skipped in order to avoid discussing deletions, renames and mergers with those who care about the category. Practices like that show bad faith and help foster the impression that CfD is owned by a small group of users. CfD needs more transparency to get over the perception of it by other Editors that their participation is unwelcome. I know that this is not true but it's a common misperception and for some people, perception equals reality. Participation in CfD by other Editors should be encouraged.

Finally, in a spot-check I did last week, about half of the CfD nominators had posted notices at the relevant WikiProject and category creator Talk Pages. It's an accepted practice by most of the regular CfD nominators and apparently this step is not burdensome. Their practice should be emulated. Liz 15:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

why isn't watchlisting categories you create sufficient? - indeed, this happens automatically, and category pages themselves change rarely, so it's not that hard to monitor. We should always tag the categories - all of them - under discussion - but I agree forcing notification which apparently isn't even required for AFD goes a bit too far and if a category has been renamed its almost impossible to determine the original creator. That said, if you use twinkle it notifies automatically, so that's what I do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also if the category is tagged for a project it shows on their deletion discussion watch list. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your second point is a clear violation of WP:AGF since you are saying that editors don't notify to to avoid discussing deletions, renames and mergers with those who care about the category. Rather then the truth which is that there are already many auto notification means in place for those that care. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a related thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion#Make notifying significant editors of deletion mandatory, where I linked to Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2012#Add requirement that Projects be notified when associated categories are discussed.
Earlier today, I was notified about a CfD for a cat that I'd forgotten creating, for which I'm grateful, since some of the posts on the discussion have misunderstood both the nomination and the purpose of the category. I'm glad that I was given the opportunity to explain things. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User Categories?

Re: Category:User:Terraflorin - I wasn't sure whether to tag this and submit it as I had never seen a category based around a User. Is this allowed? Liz 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends upon what it's used for. It seems to contain only pages in the same user's User: and User talk: spaces, so it's probably a legit test. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, Redrose64, I didn't know that Editors could have their own categories. Learn something new! Liz 01:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've found WP:OC/U which may help. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Categories for discussion from July 2012

Anyone know why Category:Categories for discussion from July 2012 has one item in it? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because this edit was part of a group of CFM/CFDs which were incompletely withdrawn by the nom. On 5 July 2012, Mayumashu (talk · contribs) put {{subst:cfm}} or {{subst:cfd}} onto 6 categories, and created a shared entry at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 5. The noms were withdrawn with the removal of the CFD entry, but only 5 of the 6 category edits were reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove the old tag and delete the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

When is a thing a Þing?

I had the notion to create a new sub-category for Category:Thing (assembly) for Scottish sites. There are a number of alternatives such as:

Category:Things of Scotland or Category:Scottish things, both of which might strike the casual reader unfamiliar with Scandinavian Scotland as either frivolous or unnecessarily broad in scope. (I suppose an advantage could be that this might draw attention to the topic).
Category:Scottish things (assemblies), which may satisfy some purists but seems rather cumbersome to me.
Category:Scottish Þings would have the reverse attributes and is my preferred option but I don't want to precipitate a contentious discussion about inconsistent naming or the use of non-standard letters which may have already been done to death in some by-way of CfD.

Comments and suggestions welcome. Ben Mac Dui 14:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor deleting the references to a cat

An editor is wholesale, it seems, deleting all references to a cat. Rather than bringing the cat here for discussion. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

if the editor doesn't revert, you should revert all of these and ask them why they are removing valid cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked him -- prior to leaving word here. He now hasn't edited since my message/question to him, following his mass deletions. And I myself don't have the tools to revert his dozens of deletions in any easy, systemic fashion.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_9#Template:Set_category

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_9#Template:Set_category. This is a template intended to be placed on top of set category pages. I have proposed it for deletion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Is creating a new policy the proper result of a CFD?

Again with this same set of people I've been dealing with for months? I thought WP:CFD's were only supposed to close with Keep or Delete? Or perhaps Relist? Are we really allowing Admins to invent new policies out of whole cloth? I am particularity unhappy with the result of essentially Depopulate as is going on with a vast number of Category:Theology disussions as it's the really just same as Delete but completely un-open to any avenue of repeal. Can anyone explain to me what policy is in play here? -- Kendrick7 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have ever limited CFD discussions to a dualistic choice of "Keep" or "Delete". Other options should always be explored. The question is simply what terms we should use for those other options. Personally, I think "Clean up" is a more positive sounding term than "Depopulate"... but they effectively mean the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yea, the close options are based on the consensus in the discussion and not limited to keep or delete. We have had merge, dual upmerge, triple upmerge, split, listify, rename, cleanup, cleanup and bring it back, convert to an article along with others. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record this stems from two discussions - Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#Category:Homophobia which was closed by another admin as to not include individuals & organisations in that category, and Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories which I closed, finding consensus for an across the board consistent position and for applying the same inclusion/exclusion criteria. CFD discussions often go into the contents as well as the name and existance of a category; there are far more outcomes than Keep, Delete and Rename. Consensus can change but in such a fraught are it would only be a lasting change from a subsequent discussion. One individual declaring they disagree with the arrangement is insufficient grounds to overturn the status quo. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:

WikiProject Categories pages