< October 31 November 2 >

November 1

Nuneaton Town F.C.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (dammit, I breathed and "broke" CfD again). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the fact that the main article page for the club is now Nuneaton Town F.C. and not Nuneaton Borough F.C. - text would be added to the new category to explain it covers players who competed for both of the named clubs. Eldumpo (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Soulja Boy categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Expand to match full stage name of rapper, Soulja Boy Tell 'Em. — ξxplicit 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Patterned ground

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Patterned ground to Category:Patterned grounds. --Xdamrtalk 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Patterned ground to Category:Patterned grounds
Nominator's rationale: Nominating on behalf of Shinkolobwe, who writes:

What is the best recommended naming convention for categories: singular (Topic) or plural (List) ? I made a new category on Category:Patterned ground, and now, I have doubts. I think it is more a list category than a topic category.

In the case it is the plural, how to move (rename):

Category:Patterned ground

to:

Category:Patterned grounds

Please, could you do it. I stop going further in categorization with this name before the question is clarified.

In advance, thanks a lot. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Skomorokh, barbarian  19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, without prejudice against recreation in a less contentious form. As an infrequent participant at CfD (and an even less frequent closer of CfDs) who has reviewed the original deletion discussion, the deletion review, the category talkpage and this discussion thoroughly, I feel I am in a position to make an informed impartial assessment of the consensus here. tl;dr version: consensus that this category-as-named is unacceptable.Take a deep breath.
The defence of this category has focused on a few contentions;
  1. That Categories for Deletion is dysfunctional, due to a large extent to its domination by a small powerful clique;
  2. That a means or forum for drawing attention to this dysfunction is necessary in order to instigate reform, and that that forum must be independent of those responsible for the dysfunction;
  3. That this category properly serves that function, and as such its deletion would hamper reform efforts and cement the dysfunction and ownership of CfD.
    Proponents of the deletion of the category have taken differing positions:
  4. That the dysfunction of Wikipedia processes is not best addressed via user categories (but rather through project talkpages for instance).
  5. That the category-as-named is irredeemable, and that no rename is feasible for the following reasons:
    1. The name of this category is divisive and reflects a battleground mentality on the part of the proponents, undermining claims of reformism.
    2. Applying the assumption of good faith, any appropriately named category would apply to an overly-broad number of CfD participants.
    On this reading, there cannot be a category that is both named so as to reflect the true intentions of its members and to meet community standards on the proper function of user categories.

A third group of editors judge the category to be inappropriate but not irredeemable, and support its rename; proponents of deletion and retention overlap somewhat with these editors. On the whole, I do not judge there to be consensus to shut down any attempts at reform, nor to rename this category to any of the proposed alternatives. There is, I think, firm consensus that the category-as-named is inappropriate however, which leaves us in something of a quandry. The talkpage shows that the category has fueled a divisive atmosphere, and yet has produced well-intentioned proposals for reform. Is there a means of retaining the improvement-orientated collaboration while dispensing with the battleground accoutrements? Let's revisit the contentions identified above.

The truth of (1) is not terribly relevant to the retention of this category; perhaps CfD is broken, perhaps not – the point is those who believe it is have every right to collaborate constructively in reforming it. There is consensus that (2) as applied to this category must be rejected as self-defeating – one CfD clique created in reaction to another is not a reformist solution, it's preparing a battleground, which leads to the rejection of (3); this category cannot serve the function of reform when it drives a wedge between CfD participants. Editors responding here, moreso than those in the previous discussions, seem to agree on (4), while wishing to retain a forum for reform proposals. I do not see consensus for (5) in this discussion; there may very well be a category that can be named positively ("Wikipedians working for structural reform of CfD" for instance).

But should such a wording be acceptable to all, what function would the category serve? SmokeyJoe, in his defence of the category's contribution to collaboration, highlights its role as a register of editors interested in reform – function that can be managed just as well by a project page list. The proper forum for reformists should facilitate proposals and discussion, and as BrownHairedGirl remarks, "fixes to CFD should be discussed at WT:CFD, not on the talk page of a category" – categories and their talkpages are ill-suited to reform efforts. So while I am deleting the category itself on ground of consensus, I do so without prejudice against a more appropriate forum, whatever form it takes (user category, WT:CFD, a project-space task force etc.), and until such a forum is found, I am moving the existing and valuable discussion on the category talkpage to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Reform.  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken to Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD
Nominator's rationale: The following is a procedural relisting of this categories for discussion thread, based on the outcome of this deletion review discussion. The first close (as delete) was deemed inappropriate, but there were still substantial concerns remaining with the name of the category. The proposed name above is one example that was raised in the course of the DRV and drew some support. I am not endorsing this particular capitalization (to which there was some debate in the first categories for discussion thread), or this particular name in general. For clarity, I suggest—but do not mandate—that this discussion focuses on the issue of renaming and set aside issues of deletion for the time being. As this is a procedural relisting, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't bother It's a user category and is not disruptive to actually building the encyclopedia. Nobody should care, and discussing it is a waste of time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete -- An unnecessary user category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is working to improve it. In that sense, the proposed rename is the equivalent of Category:Wikipedians who participate in Categories for Discussion, and would be more accurate and acceptable if renamed as such. The current name is uninformative, non-constructive, and unduly provocative in that it seems dependent upon a factionalist view. It presumes that there are those who have "broken" CfD, whatever that means, and that there are those few who are brave enough to speak up about it. In that sense, it does not contribute to a positive, collaborative atmosphere. So I think this category should be deleted or renamed as I have suggested. Outright deletion would not be a loss at all because there are already centralized discussion pages for discussing improvements to CfD and the criteria that govern it, so there is no need to categorize users interested in participating in CfD. Indeed, the only purpose the category seemed to be put to was to use its talk page as a general discussion forum for CfD (not for the category itself, which is what a category's talk page is supposed to be used for), which is a rather obscure place if the goal is to increase participation in CfD. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shall I assume that the reviewing administrator will review the first CfD during their closure, making it unnecessary for those of us who participated in that to reiterate our views in this? Usually relists are made with the previous comments visible in a section above (which this doesn't have), which is why I ask. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not, let me reiterate my Delete (first preference in light of postdlf's comments) or rename (if no consensus to delete, to whatever name the closing admin thinks would best satisfy the highest number of people). And if so, let me point out that several users (myself included) participated in both the old and new cfd. VegaDark (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that I definitely won't be closing this debate, my view is to delete (with apologies to IronGargoyle's probably more sensible advice). What do we have here? A user category and its talk page. Some discussion on the talk page (a definite plus), but how is this a help to the 99.999% of people who don't even know this category exists? This category languishes in obscurity. Cfd, as an established and significant Xfd process, has any number of dedicated and immediately obvious fora which can be used. How does this user category improve upon these well-known, highly public, widely watched, alternatives? For those who claim an interest in developing and improving the Cfd process, surely the centralized Cfd discussion page at WT:CFD is by far and away the superior choice? For those who express a desire to increase participation, why the antipathy to discussing issues out in the open where others can observe and contribute?
Stripping away the duplicated and limited effort at the talk page, essentially all we have here is a snarkily named user category. Now, as a general rule there is already a strong consensus against categories based on support or opposition for wiki-political issues. This category, to my mind, illustrates why this is generally a sound approach. This is a category which is unnecessarily factional and divisive. It is immoderate and, rather than uniting, sets up active division between editors concerned with the Cfd process. The current name, with its provocative overtones, only serves to aggravate tensions, implying poor judgement and culpability wrt those presently engaged with this process, but doing nothing to positively address any of the issues that there may be with Cfd as presently constituted. This category facilitates nothing meaningful, other than giving voice to vague and unconstructive complaint.
Xdamrtalk 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Now, as a general rule there is already a strong consensus against categories based on..." One of the central premises of CfD criticism is the lack of outside participation has created an insular group with rules and 'precedents' that don't make sense to outsiders. This is, by definition, a statement that CfD and UCfD, DO NOT have strong consensus, and the precedents invoked are part of the problem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I don't think anyone believes that that precedents alone are justification for doing something - this is not a court of law. What I am suggesting, and what others before have seemed to find consensus over, is that these sort of categories add necessary friction. We can see that in this case - 2 Cfds and one DRV later, can we see any spirit of true consensus-building going on? No. Instead we have entrenched division and factionalism. I don't think anyone claims that Cfd is perfect. What I do think is that it is unnecessarily provocative to create a category which essentially states that those who are presently involved with this process are responsible for 'breaking' it. If things are broken, suggest a solution. If people don't agree then attempt to build a consensus for change or moderate your proposals until widely agreed upon. A little tact and diplomacy, a little give-and-take; it simply doesn't cut it to create a snarky category as a riposte.
Xdamrtalk 02:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion on the talk page (a definite plus), but how is this a help to the 99.999% of people who don't even know this category exists?

Because, it has been alleged that the complainers are few and at fault, and it is apparent that the complainers are not in one mind, and so it is appropriate that those of similarly mind can start to discuss at their own pace. I think everyone interested is now aware. There is no attempt to shut other’s out – in fact several dissenters were contributing productively to the discussion.

“This category languishes in obscurity.”

Anything but, I say. An we are still in the workshopping stage!

Cfd, as an established and significant Xfd process, has any number of dedicated and immediately obvious fora which can be used.

“immediately obvious fora” I think not. “any number of”. We that is probably part of the problem – too many overlapping, unfocused fora.

“How does this user category improve upon these well-known, highly public, widely watched, alternatives?”

It has focus. It has focus on discussion what (if anything) is broken about CfD. Note that “Wikipedians who say” implicitly acknowledges that said wikipedians may be wrong.

“For those who claim an interest in developing and improving the Cfd process, surely the centralized Cfd discussion page at WT:CFD is by far and away the superior choice?”.

No. It is too general, and is archived too fast. Perhaps we could move to WT:CFD/Long standing problems?

“For those who express a desire to increase participation, why the antipathy to discussing issues out in the open where others can observe and contribute?”

No discussion appears to be occurring anywhere that hasn’t already occurred at WT:CFD (now archived).

“we have here is a snarkily named user category”.

This is a failure of AGF on your part. Snarkiness had no part in it. The name was chosen as succinct, measured and factual.

“Now, as a general rule there is already a strong consensus against categories based on support or opposition for wiki-political issues.”

This goes to one of the problems of CfD that I hope to explore – the use of “precedent” for complex issues. It tends to intimidate the non-regulars. Also, I note, there are significant exceptions to the eradication of focus wikipedian opinion categories.

“This is a category which is unnecessarily factional and divisive.”

Disagree. See the talk page. As for division, it is far more putting a spotlight on an existing division than it is creating one.

“The current name, with its provocative overtones, only serves to aggravate tensions, implying poor judgement and culpability wrt those presently engaged with this process, but doing nothing to positively address any of the issues that there may be with Cfd as presently constituted.”

I read this far more as a statement arising out of paranoia than as a statement of truth.

“This category facilitates nothing meaningful, other than giving voice to vague and unconstructive complaint.”

Just because you don’t see meaning doesn’t mean that there is no meaning. I see meaning, constructive and productive. But this is a multistep process. There has been a problem with CfD for years, and this is going to be hard work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename Rather than abusing process in the previous close, this disruption could have been easily avoided by selecting from among the alternative titles offered or simply closing as no consensus. The overwhelming community consensus regarding at DRV regarding the prior CfD have sent all of us a clear message that there is much work to do to make CfD a representative and responsive process of the Wikipedia community as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think, would be the optimum result here, per insights above by User:Postdlf and User:Xdamr. Since presumably everyone who participates at CfD is working to improve it, this category is kind of meaningless. Unless users have something to hide, WT:CFD and WT:CAT are logical places to discuss any specific proposals for improvements. Since several users who want the category to exist are placing themselves in the deliciously self-contradictory position of boycotting all participation at CfD, I think we can also say delete per the deletion of Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point - it is, so far as many of us are concerned, doing harm. --Xdamrtalk 10:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, allowing wikipedians to voice their own opinions on their own user pages is doing harm? --UltraMagnusspeak 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is category space, not user space. But yes, particular uses of user space do have the potential of doing harm. Look at my userpage, for example ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User categories have no effect on the main project to build Wikipedia and should be treated with the standard of user pages. Saying "this is category space, not user space" tries to bring a different set of inapplicable criteria to a deletion discussion. 97.113.185.223 (talk)
Well, user categories are not treated the same as user space—that's just a fact. (If you don't believe me, compare the guidelines at Wikipedia:User categories with those at Wikipedia:User page.) Whether they should or not is a completely different issue that is likely beyond the scope of this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the guideline at Wikipedia:User Categories reveals it recently failed an RfC asking whether it had ever actually been a guideline to begin with. That drives right into the problem with CfD in general, a small group of people think they've created concensus guidelines in their own little part of the project, and they repeat they they have guidelines to individuals who ask, but these precedences and guidelines have never been examined by the project as a whole. When these issues keep coming up in places where people comment, like DRV, they are shown to be out of wack. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking descriptively, not normatively; you seem more interested in doing the opposite. You're the first user I've ever heard say that user categories and user space should be treated identically. I think most users acknowledge that there may be some different considerations. Since you are the creator behind the infamous Category:Wikipedians who crack boiled eggs on the rounded end-incident, I naturally assume you are at the extreme end of a spectrum. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it's not that extreme at all. I wrote parts of the user category section of text on the user pages guideline. It comes as a surprise to many long time editors of WP:USER that WP:USERCAT even exists. Nothing beyond what I wrote on user categories in the WP:USER page has ever been shown to have wide concensus. So, no, I don't think I have an extreme POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said—in my experience, it's unique. I didn't mean extreme in the sense of you being an "extremist". I just meant it's not a commonly held view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is not unique. That you think so is why CfD is broken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is impeccable. I "am" CfD, after all. I've underlined the relevant words above that you may wish to re-read. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User categories and user space should be treated according to the same principles: Leave it to the editors involved, as long as it is related to wikipedia, and is not harmful or otherwise precluded by some specific rule. And no, I don't agree with someone who said that many usercategories are harmful to the category system, just as many userpages are not harmful to userspace (see WP:PERFORMANCE). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wasn't intending on surveying everyone's opinion on the "should be" of this broader issue. To me, the caveats you mention seem to take your position beyond that of Schmucky's. My underlying point is the identical principles are not applied, and have not been as long as I have been on Wikipedia. If someone actually thinks they should be, it's not surprising they would think CfD is "broken", because it includes what used to be UCfD, which has been around for a good while. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(removing a couple levels of indent):Do you know how UCfD was created? It was created in a fit of pique by Radiant, because he was tired of people who wanted to act like user space cops bringing issues to CfD. It was not like UCfD ever had a wide discussion where people thought it was a good idea. That it died -- that was a good idea. We simply do not need to actively police user space. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the view that if it starts with "User:" it's userspace; but if it starts with "Category:", it's category space. CfD is for category space; there is no equivalent for user space. And thus we have come full circle on this thread. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV has already established that there's no consensus to delete this category, folks. The available options are rename and

keep. I don't care which, but I will see that you don't delete our discussion space on the talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
    • Who gave you italic-powered veto over community decisions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can go further than italics. If I have to, I shall resort to bold.  :)

        CfD could not reasonably delete that talk page. I'm absolutely confident that if any consensus to delete that space emerges here, then it can and will be overturned. I think you could move it, but I will see that you do not delete it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'm not sure what the big deal is since it's quite easy to copy the text. Hell, if it gets deleted, let me know and I'll provide you a copy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder. Do you understand why I was less than thrilled the last time it got deleted?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have an idea—based on your other comments here and elsewhere. If you haven't yet explained it fully, you could tell me on my talk page. But one user's idiosyncratic (or completely rational) preferences don't control the process of what gets deleted and what doesn't, which is my point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wish they didn't, but I'm afraid my observations of CfD suggest things are occasionally otherwise.  :)

                On those occasions, I think it's better to challenge than to work around the person with the controlling preferences by merely asking for a copy of the deleted page. Which is not to imply that you personally are the said person.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                • So you're just trying to get a piece of the action—I understand. On your latter point, I agree with you there. But what I've never been completely clear about is—if having discussion space is the key issue, why are the discussions to improve CFD not just carried out at WT:CFD, where it can have greater visibility and participation? Or at WT:CAT or at village pump? A user category talk page is not going to get many hits; the only possible benefits I can see that would accrue from carrying on discussion there as opposed to elsewhere would depend on those participating actively conspiring against other users, etc. I'm sure this is not why it's wanted, but if it were email seems entirely more convenient. If you just want a semi-personalized communal space, user space would work, too. Of course, if it's not all about the talk space—and I think it's probably not to you—then that answers the question. But then of course we run into problems of this category becoming a "symbol" of some other movement or belief; such XfD symbolization is almost always a bad idea because it usually leads to great contention between those who view a particular case as a symbol and those who just view it in the normal way. I'm afraid this is quickly going down that problematic path. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict with amended reply above) Well, I think I'm not going to get much further unless I pretend for the moment that it's appropriate for one group of users to restrict which discussion space is used by another. So I shall so pretend, although for the avoidance of doubt, my position remains that it's for us to decide what's an appropriate discussion space for our conversation.

      The history of that particular group of users will probably shed some light on this. It comprises people who are long time participants at DRV, who have sat in judgment over a substantial number of deletion discussions, and who share a perception that there are certain structural problems at CfD. By virtue of our shared experience and perception, there are many things we do not need to establish or explain to one another, but are simply taken as read. In such an environment it should be possible to move forward more quickly to an agreement on what remedies are both necessary and practical. But if we move to WT:CSD, which is watched by many editors, progress will stall and get sidetracked as we explain our own position repeatedly to others, while the problems we perceive remain.

      Also, there is the fact that the members of this category (not all of whom have re-joined it since its deletion and depopulation) are, as a group, confident, vocal and articulate, and will challenge one another closely. This will be time-consuming enough as it is.

      I strongly object to, and utterly reject, the suggestion that we would even consider "actively conspiring against other users" and I do not understand the apparent desire in this CfD discussion to question our motives. You are dealing with an identifiable group of good-faith users here, and we wish to talk in a quiet, but not invisible, space. We do not email one another or communicate off-wiki. In fact, all of our actions are totally above reproach, and it certainly ought not to help you to achieve this category's deletion if you imply otherwise.

      To forestall certain predictable responses, I will in no uncertain terms reject the idea that "you should talk somewhere else so we can delete your category".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand, but it doesn't convince me a user category is necessary to accomplish what you appear to be seeking. To me it looks like a great groupthink experiment, but the location seems rather beside the point. I suppose your skepticism about dictating where others can discuss issues needs an example: I could use my user space to talk up a storm about how I'm going to fix up those "Turkey" articles to remove all the anti-Armenian bias I perceive in them, but the moment I create Category:Wikipedians who are striving to remove anti-Armenianism in Turkey articles, I put myself in the position of possibly engaging CfD whether I like it or not. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point. Just because you want to discuss something on a given page doesn't mean the community will endorse your wants. By the way, I wasn't suggesting that you were wanting to conspire against other users, I said that was the only potential benefit I could perceive. Note that I said, "I'm sure this is not why it's wanted". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and in response to "Of course, if it's not all about the talk space—and I think it's probably not to you—then that answers the question. But then of course we run into problems of this category becoming a "symbol" of some other movement or belief; such XfD symbolization is almost always a bad idea because it usually leads to great contention between those who view a particular case as a symbol and those who just view it in the normal way. I'm afraid this is quickly going down that problematic path." I would say that I find that remark deeply, richly ironic.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that's good (?) ... I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you're suggesting that I have made this a symbolic case. I can assure you that this is not the case. I won't lose much sleep whether this discussion results in delete, keep, or rename. You, on the other hand, have said emphatically that: "I will see that you don't delete our discussion space on the talk page". I see a certain symbolization here of "us" vs. "them"—"you" deleting "our" talkspace. This was what I was referring to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No category is "necessary". If "unnecessary" were a good reason for deleting a category, we might as well wipe out the whole lot and just use lists. Categories are justified because they're convenient, not because they're needed. The idea that "unnecessary" is a reason to delete a category strikes me as peculiar, particularly when valid counterarguments are raised.

    I do not dispute that the politically-charged category you mention would be undesirable, but extrapolating from that to this is too much of a stretch. Criticism of Wikipedia is quite permissible on Wikipedia, but making POV political statements is not so highly-regarded.

    As for the irony, yes, I think that there is a great deal of unconscious symbolism in the fact that some of you (used in the plural, rather than to mean GO personally) wish to delete this category.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is essentially a WP:NOHARM argument. NOHARM and NOTNECESSARY are just opposite sides of the same coin. But my argument has not been limited to it being unnecessary. That's a gross oversimplification of my entire comment. And my point in using the politically-charged example was not to demonstrate what would be a "bad" user category. It was to demonstrate that you can do a lot of talking in your own userspace but as soon as you create a user category to carry on the identical discussion, it becomes potentially subject to community assessment as to whether the user category is a good idea or not. I only brought it up because you seemed skeptical of the entire premise that the community can determine that a particular discussion page is inappropriately-named. If you don't believe the community has that authority, then you essentially disagree with the entire premise of deleting talk pages along with their corresponding articles and categories which are deleted in XfD. That is not at a common position (see WP:SD#G8); I have never heard it voiced before. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "no harm" argument, it's a "some good" argument.  :)

    I am in no way skeptical of the idea that the community can form a judgment over whether this category is appropriate, and I totally support the idea that it can. My position is that it has, and that judgment is "no consensus to delete". IronGargoyle sent it back here in the hope that the community would be able to discuss whether it should be renamed or kept, and if renamed, to what; but there appears to be a view here among those who originally wanted to see the category deleted, that IronGargoyle's advice may be disregarded and it would be productive for this to be a do-over from scratch instead. Obviously, I think this view is mistaken.

    Deleting this category would fix nothing even if achieved. The group of editors involved are not going to go away, and neither is the discussion. I do think it would be simpler and less disruptive if this was accepted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry to belabour the point, but I just don't think most users are approaching this that way. Most are just viewing this as another CfD. There has never been a closing declaration on any CfD discussion stating that there is "no consensus to delete"; that seems to be your own reading of what has gone before. (My understanding is that DRV doesn't determine that there was no consensus to delete—it determines if there is consensus to relist or overturn a CfD.) I also don't think anyone is disruptively wanting any particular group of editors to go away or any particular discussions to stop. Maybe it's just not as important to some as it is to others. In any case, more users are participating this time, which is always a good thing. They should be able to have their say, even if it's not viewed as the simplest outcome. Good Ol’factory (talk)
  • PS: would you have any objection to me placing this back-and-forth discussion is a collapsable box, starting with my comment "Who gave you italic-powered veto ..."? I don't want to scare anyone away with the messiness of this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you review DRV quickly, you'll see outcomes such as "Overturn to keep" or "Overturn to delete" are commonplace. It's quite normal for DRV to mandate what the result of a discussion was, or should have been. In this case IronGargoyle's words recommended discussion of what the category's name should be, and suggested but did not order that discussion of deletion should be avoided. CfD seems to be going its own way on that issue.

    If the objective is not to stop the discussion and not to prevent editors from expressing a certain view, then please could you explain to me why deletion is better than a rename?

    PS: I was hatting this discussion even as you suggested it (edit conflict) :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't speak for others, but personally I wouldn't actively oppose a rename—I supported such a move in the initial CfD—but upon further refection I now do think that it's less desirable because I think once it's renamed to something like Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD it would become essentially meaningless, for the reason Postdlf set out initially in this thread. My main view on this though is that deletion of a user category only stops discussions or views from being presented if you let it. As many have pointed out, there are many other possible fora where the exact same sentiments could be expressed. And these other fora would have the added benefit of not being as divisive as this has become. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see three elements in that response, and I will reply to each in turn.

1) "A new category name would be meaningless" -- Nobody has suggested a good name yet. That doesn't mean no good name could be thought of. It just means that nobody has paid any attention to what the new name might be.

2) Deletion of a user category does not stop you talking somewhere else -- Indeed it doesn't. But the equivalent argument in other XFD venues would be laughed out of the room. (Imagine if I took WT:CFD to MFD, saying "I think this page should be deleted. It won't be disruptive to CFD users because they can find somewhere else to talk." Do you think that would cut much ice with the closing admin?) The fact that arguments of this rather weak nature really are commonplace at CfD, and do indeed commonly carry the day, is one of the many things that are broken. You should not be able to argue that deletion of a category is okay because there is a way for good faith users to work around the deletion. Or rather, if you do, there should be an equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that applied to categories and would enjoin the closer to disregard such an argument.

3) This issue is divisive -- it is indeed. But it has become divisive because it was wrongly deleted at CfD. If the proper closure of "no consensus" had been implemented in the first place, we would not be having this discussion. And I get the sense that you (collectively) are surprised that category members have not just accepted the bad deletion. I think you (collectively) think we should just accept your view and work round it because you are the CFD regulars and we are, by and large, not. Which, to me, implies some ownership issues.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, your argument is weak that this category should not be deleted because you need its talk page as a forum; that there are other fora available is not a strong argument in and of itself, but obviously is not the only one raised against this category, and was offered here only as an obvious counterargument. What is clear is that a consensus of editors believe the current name is inappropriate. Obviously IronGargoyle's proposed rename is an improvement, but as I noted in my original comment here, it implicitly fails to assume good faith because it suggests there are those who aren't working to improve CfD. If that implicit element is removed from the equation, then it's just blandly for everyone who participates in CfD. The problem with a rename is that there simply isn't anything concrete or constructive about it, and no one supporting the category's existence has clarified what its focus is. As Robofish noted below, it is not in line with other existing categories for Wikipedia philosophy or opinion, because it doesn't reveal what anyone supports or opposes. What those included stand for is not clear at all, so the only clear thing coming through is an unelaborated negative judgment and move towards factionalism. I don't believe anyone wants to communicate that, yet that is how it is being interpreted, so that needs to be addressed. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you reject the current title and you reject "Wikipedians working to improve CfD", why not "Wikipedians working for structural reform of CfD" ? I'd be quite happy with a renaming to an acceptable compromise. NB: If you reject this title, please suggest a constructive alternative.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe "working for structural reform of CfD" would communicate, both about the intent and conduct of those who categorize themselves with it and about those who do not, and about those who created, maintain, and/or currently participate in CfD? postdlf (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would communicate precisely what it says: that those who categorise themselves with it hold that structural reform of CfD would be of benefit to the encyclopaedia. It says nothing at all about those who do not categorise themselves with it. (Compare: I happen to be in Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. Other Wikipedians are in other national categories. But the absence of a national category does not imply that the user comes from Mars... it just means they haven't categorised themselves.) It also says nothing about those who created, maintain and/or currently participate in CfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I perceive the following problems with CfD:

    1) Deletion decisions against consensus, or those which simply disregard the discussion that preceded them, abound. CfD is a small part of the project's deletion process that occupies a disproportionate amount of DRV time for its importance. I believe the admins who implement CfD are generally good-faith users but their understanding of consensus appears to be at odds with the understanding of consensus we have at DRV.

    2) Reversing a deletion at CfD is not simple. At AfD, if an article has been deleted, then reviving it is simply a question of a few mouse clicks; but the only way to reverse a CfD decision is to find the bot that implemented it, track down the diffs of category removal, and reverse each one. In the case of a large category, a deletion could actually be rather hard to reverse.

    3) I find that the criteria used for CfD are either intelligible to me or objective in nature--but rarely both. Compare AfD, which focuses on notability, which in turn has an objective test: significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There is a lack of similarly objective criteria.

    4) Categories cannot include references, which means that any category related to living people is technically in violation of our BLP policies.

    I do not know how to solve these challenges, but it's clear to me that any useful answer will involve substantial changes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) I'm not a regular at DRV, but it doesn't appear to me that a high percentage of CfDs are taken to DRV, let alone reversed. There are definitely contentious ones, however, and my perception is they most commonly involve the categorization of people (see #4 below). But individual Wikipedians close CfDs, so it would seem to me that if there are repeated problems with how a particular individual closes CfDs then that needs to be addressed with that individual. The fact is that decisions are made by those who show up; the closes are reflective of the admins who decide to participate at CfD and take the time to close. So maybe CfD needs wider participation and a greater number of admins closing (not a bad thing). Maybe DRV participants need to better understand guiding principles applicable to CfD that the closer may be applying in weighing arguments (also not a bad thing; see also #4 below). And maybe CfD guiding principles need to be better codified (also also not a bad thing; see #3 below).
  • 2) Another way to look at the problem of categories is that it only takes one individual to decide a particular category should exist, with consequences for potentially hundreds of articles to which that category might apply. But I digress... There might be a software solution to this, maybe an automatic snapshot of all category contents could get posted somewhere by a bot? Another idea might be to require as part of deletion procedure that a list of the contents be kept on some subpage somewhere, at least for some amount of time, but I don't know how regularly that would (or could) be followed.
  • 3) It took years for notability to get codified in the form that it is now; for a long time, just about AfD (then VfD) bogged down in a fight about whether notability was even deletion criteria. But that emerged from discussions themselves rather than from the imposition of a top-down rule upon those discussions. Should guidelines be prescriptive or descriptive? We do have guidelines for CfD, primarily WP:OCAT, which could of course be clearer, though I don't know of any I would consider unintelligible. There are ones I don't see the point for, there are additional ones I would also like to see adopted but few agree with me, but I at least understand where they are all coming from. They at least help to frame the dialogue, even if they don't clearly dictate particular outcomes. In response to a request for clearer codification, I posted some basic premises at Wikipedia talk:Categorization awhile ago that I saw as underlying most of the OCAT concerns (and therefore most of CfD concerns). Everyone who took the time to respond agreed but then the discussion unfortunately stopped there.
  • 4) This is one of the main reasons categories for people are treated strictly by many at CfD, and may explain why some have been deleted contrary to an absolute vote count or ostensible consensus. At minimum, categories for people need to be kept to only the most clear and objective statements of fact. This seems obvious to me, but there are still arguments about it. The opposing view seems to primarily rest on the notion that just because we could find a reliable source characterizing someone a "liberal" or stating that they've been accused of "child molestation," that it's therefore appropriate to categorize on that basis. Not everything that is verifiable makes a good category, and categories should never classify characterizations or accusations, precisely because those are only meaningful when directly explained and sourced (and possibly libelous when not). postdlf (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postdlf makes some very interesting and important points here, buried in a collapsed box in a CfD debate. Postdlf was features prominently in the oldest archives as someone who first addressed serious implications in the unregulated use of categories (in mainspace). There are many such useful comments lost in DRV and CfD discussions. We need a better place to discuss. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He does, and it's not a discussion I intend to have here and now. I need to track down specific DRVs, if only to show the developments that led to my understanding of CfD at the moment (which, to be clear, I've come to through DRV rather than through participation here. I have attempted to participate here on a very few occasions, which necessitated some research into what CfD's criteria actually are. I find them either objective or intelligible but rarely both, which meant I decided I could not productively participate... Further discussion would be at a level of detail outside the scope of a CfD that has already spent about half of the available time focusing on whether we should be allowed to have a category at all.)

    The purpose of providing those concerns was not to discuss them here. It was to facilitate suggestions on how we should rename the category. And renaming the category is the point of this discussion. Let's get back to that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Wikipedians who say CfD is broken" is nothing more than a violation of "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". It pits users against each other, which certainly does do harm. It has been suggested that this is to be used for collaboration, which I disagree with as well. It is an opinion category. I have many opinions about many subjects, but that doesn't mean I wish to collaborate with anyone on any of them. "Wikipedians working to improve CFD"? As pointed out above, everyone who edits wikipedia is working to improve it. No need to point that out. If you are serious in wanting to discuss improvements to CFD, the logical place is WT:CFD, not the talk page of an obscure category. Copy the talk page over if you want. --Kbdank71 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the senses in which CfD is broken is that when DRV sends it a signal, CfD doesn't seem to get the message.

    It's rather evident that in normal custom and practice, user categories that "pit users against each other" are certainly not deleted. Hence, there are categories for Inclusionist Wikipedians and Deletionist Wikipedians, categories for Atheist Wikipedians and for those of various religions, and so on. It's also evident that in normal custom and practice, users can categorise themselves into which areas of the project they're working to improve at the moment (hence Guild of Copyeditors, DYK contributors, etc.) and they can have a wide range of topic-specific discussion areas for that particular field of interest. It's certainly not normal practice for one group to say to another, "you must use this discussion space and not that one if you are serious about making improvements."

    I really do think it would be wisest to heed IronGargoyle's advice at the top of the thread here. The mountain isn't going to come to Mohammed, and coming to a decision that forces yet another DRV would have little practical effect but to prove our point.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DRV is to decide whether or not the CFD deletion was proper, not to decide what to do at the relisting. If you think CFD is "broken" based upon that mistaken criterion, perhaps you don't understand CFD and DRV. Nowhere is it mandated that a CFD relisting must adhere to the opinions derived at DRV. As for the venue to "fix" CFD, you are correct; I cannot tell you where to have the discussion. I would think you would want to get as many people as possible in the discussion. Especially when too many of the DRV's that claim CFD is broken make reference to consensus being judged by too few participants. Another reason why I don't think this category is useful. --Kbdank71 18:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the first point, DRV absolutely does have the power to overturn any deletion discussion and to mandate a different result if it chooses. On this occasion it's preferred to relist in the hope of an outcome more in accordance with the original consensus (i.e. if the category is to be renamed, to what?) I think this discussion should focus on that issue, as IronGargoyle has advised. I think treating this discussion as a complete do-over that can lead to a "delete" outcome in disregard of the previous one is misguided, but if you're determined to pursue it, then that's up to you. You might even succeed, but as I've said before, I shall see that you don't repeat this business of deleting our discussion space.

    On the second point ("If you think CFD is broken based on that mistaken criterion..."), I've said in various places why I think CfD is broken, and that wasn't it. I don't think you understand my position on CfD, but that's fine, nobody's forcing you to.

    On the third point (venue to "fix" CFD--your inverted commas and not mine), if you do eventually establish a CfD consensus to rid yourselves of a category that's critical of CfD, then all you'll achieve is the creation of a different space (e.g. WikiProject CfD, or CfD repair task force, or something). The group of users will not go away, and neither will the discussion. Which brings me neatly to the fourth point ("I don't think this category is useful")--you don't have to accept that it's useful, but you do have to deal with good faith users who do. Which, in turn, means that the really "not useful" step is this curious insistence on deleting the category despite all resistance.

    Finally, still on the "not useful" point, this is an identifiable group of users with identifiable shared views and a desire to collaborate on a particular matter. What else is a user category for?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • a category that's critical of CfD Right there is why this should be deleted. See, you can have this discussion at WT:CFD, and doing so will bring in more people to the discussion, and keep the discussion on track. What WT:CFD will not do, is allow you to criticize CFD the way you apparently want to. Please feel free to discuss how you can better CFD, I have no problem with that. But use the venue that is most suited to your goals. --Kbdank71 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a concern about what I say, you are of course welcome to raise it in the appropriate place. But until you do, I'll be the judge of what I should criticise, and I'll be the judge of where I should criticise it.

    It is probably frustrating for you that I am apparently criticising CfD on the basis of very little participation in CfD, and I should imagine you feel quite affronted that I should do so. If so, I would understand that feeling, but there are some things you do not get to dictate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a battleground. User:Postdlf (among others) has it exactly right. That said, I don't oppose the creation of Category:Wikipedians who participate in Categories for Discussion. - jc37 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:POINTy and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. This category does not help improve the encyclopaedia; it only serves to divide Wikipedians and creates bad feeling. I contrast it with other categories like Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions or Category:Wikipedians against notability, in that those categories take positions in debates over policy; this one doesn't take a position, it just criticises CfD (and, implicitly, the Wikipedians who participate in it). I don't think anyone has yet given a convincing argument why this is worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians for improving CfD or any other name. Carlaude:Talk 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename --there is nothing wrong with "...working to improve Cfd" -- although we all want to improve everything, various people concentrate of trying to improve various parts of the system. And it is within the scope of DRV to say what should be done about a particular article, category , or whatever, & to overturn in a particular manner. Essentially I pretty much agree with S Marshall on this, & I don't think anyone will say it's because of my lack of participation here. It's an interesting COI that many of the people who apparently like CfD as it is, are opposing people self-identifying as wanting to change it. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It's an interesting COI that many of the people who apparently like CfD as it is, are opposing people self-identifying as wanting to change it." I'm not sure if that's really what you meant to say, but if it was, that's actually very non-interesting, because people who disagree on a specific issue can always be said to be "opposing" one another. It's nothing to do with COI; it's just a disagreement between users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename appropriately (whatever that turns out). Perhaps "broken" is a bit too strong word. Wikipedia has a lot of "broken" and outdated processes that no longer serve the community as well as they once did (I'm looking at the whole XfD system right now), and I'm sure there's no harm listing people who believe some processes could use improvement. Yet, I'm not 100% sure if a category is really warranted - a userbox with Special:Whatlinkshere might do the trick... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a [thing] with Special:Whatlinkshere". That's basically what a category is. An indeed, one of the suggestions of the underlying problems is the lack of functionality of categories beyond a formatted "Special:Whatlinkshere" page. If only we could get around to talking about these things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actuallly no. While many types of categories do duplicate "whatlinkshere" (and should probably be assessed for their value, if they do), especially those populated by templates (such as userboxes), not all do suplicate it. Categories can group articles by topic. Or group articles by some attribute of the article's subject. And a myriad of other positive uses. - jc37 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds like an applcation description, not a functionality. Functionally, categories don't group articles by topic, they group articles by whether the articles link to the category. What I am talking about is the inability to easily cross reference different categories, to find intersections and other logical operations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very happy with the many unfamiliar faces participating in this discussion. And I find it interesting to note that these unfamiliar faces are so much more posively inclined towards this category than Cfd venerable admins. I support the rename on the grounds that it will be easier to affect Cfd from without than from within, tellingly... At the same time, I think a rename to make this category sound a tad more positively couldn't hurt. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IWANTIT typically has as many supporters as those who want something. In article space, IWANTIT is easily dealt with the statement that editor wants are not what we base whether a category should exist or not. In the case of user categories, even though the goal is facilitating positive collaboration, there are those who just say "IWANTIT, and I don't care whether it's useful for anything at all, so you should listen to my wants". So far I have not heard ANYONE indicate how this would help the encyclopedia more than a more positively named category. (One which would not fall afoul of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT.) No, this kind of nonsense is merely disruption "because we can", followed by a Bronx cheer. - jc37 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and how on earth does the existence of this category disrupt wikipedia? if anything trying to delete it violates wp:point far more than its existance--UltraMagnusspeak 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
Assists in constructive collaboration How? It serves to maintain a register of people who continue to hold a view (as opposed to people who once held the view). It says who needs talking to. The objective is that the category will eventually become depopulated by members removing themselves from it. This may be unusual, but it is necessary in this case because feedback of dissatisfaction about CfD, as the management discussion board of categories, has been longstanding but individually rejected as isolated complaints. It is an important early step in the resolution of a the problem. The first step is observation of the problem. This has been done many times over. The next step is recognition and agreement about the problem. Here, we have faultered, and in creating the category we are taking half a step back, in the hope of being able to move forward again.
Why not go the offered rename? A reason for a rename seems to focus an implicit negative comment on the regular maintainers of CfD. To the extent that this is true or valid (I dispute both), “Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD” is no different. It implies a commitment to work (ie make change against resistence), and improve implies that there is something wrong with the status quo. Together, these things mean that something significant is wrong, which is exactly what “broken”, in the context of the category name means. So, the rename is semantics at best, and serves to obfuscate the problem at worst.
It does no harm. Some allege harm or insult. Clearly, this means that they identify with CfD. To insult CfD is to insult the volunteers personally? Well, firstly, it is not “insulting” to a process to have negative feedback on the process. Secondly, to the extent that some people co-identify with a process, this is evidence of an ownership problem. We should not censor feedback to protect people from underlying ownership issues. To illustrate this – imagine criticising AfD. If I say “It is oppressive, unfriendly, bitey, overloaded, erratic, partisan, inherently flawed, elitist” are there people who feel personally slighted? No, because no one OWNs AfD. And, in fact, a category exists, Category:Wikipedians against notability, “attacking” the pseudo-policy underlying the most contentious plank of AfD. But no one is insulted, because no one OWNs Wikipedia:Notability. No, this category does not hurt, and if there is pain, it’s because the category draws attention to an existing problem.
The weak allusions to WP:NOT. WP:SOAPBOX? There is a plan, it is not just rhetoric, andt WP:SOAPBOX was never intended to apply to opinions directed at the workings of the project. WP:BATTLEGROUND? Please read the policy section. It is not in any part remotely applicable to this category or to the debate for which the category is a resource. WP:POINT? There is purpose beyond a mere “point” and the is no disruption in the existence of the resource. Having to defend the resource is, however, a major distraction from addressing the actual problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In defence of “broken”, not *too* strong a word. Yes broken is a strong word, but measured. Things that are broken get fixed. If broken were too strong, what would be better? “Wikipedians who say aspects of CfD are a bit broken”? Such a weakening would mean that it applies to every process. The title is correctly measured to be a bit strong so that it can be assumed that every member feels relatively strongly about it. The strength of the title is also important to encourage members to remove themselves when they no longer consider that CfD is significantly broken. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this should be moved to MfD, that is where deletion discussions on userspace, and anything that is primarily used in userspace, such as userboxes in template space, normally go.--UltraMagnusspeak 10:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Userboxes? Debresser (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we moved this to MfD it would be sent back here post-haste. All user categories are considered at CfD, not MfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on pointy battleground observations that others have made above. This does nothing to advance or improve the wikipedia, ir simply serves to divide. Hell, it doesn't even take a position; it just exists to criticize. Spend more time actually working towards addressing what you think is wrong with CfD and less time making making yourselves into a clique. Jesus. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the battleground reasons set out above. Sure, CFD is imperfect, but so is just about every other procedure on wikipedia (ANI, RfA, AFD etc all have their problems), but flag-waving and factionalism don't resolve problems. Fixing things needs discussion and consensus, and fixes to CFD should be discussed at WT:CFD, not on the talk page of a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the unique nature of this discussion, I am posting a notice about this CfD debate on the administrators' noticeboard, to hopefully attract the attention of a closer who does not frequent CfDs. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely - the more uninvolved the better. Thanks. --Xdamrtalk 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Dope

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dope albums to Category:Dope (band) albums
Propose renaming Category:Dope members to Category:Dope (band) members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article Dope (band) and remove any ambiguity. Tassedethe (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Doncaster's Railways

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Doncaster's Railways ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Already categorised correctly under Category:Rail transport in Lincolnshire and Category:Rail transport in South Yorkshire. No need for further subcategorisation by a single station on the line. Tassedethe (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see no point in this category and recategorised some station articles into more appropriate categories last year. As there is only a single article left that can be covered in Category:Transport in Doncaster as per other rail lines in the borough. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Domino albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Domino albums to Category:Domino (rapper) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article Domino (rapper) and disambiguate from Category:Domino Records albums. Tassedethe (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coldplay single covers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Coldplay single covers to Category:Coldplay album covers
Nominator's rationale: No need for additional sub-categorization. As album and single covers are categorized under Category:Album covers, these files should follow suit. — ξxplicit 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean War destroyer escorts of the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 04:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Korean War destroyer escorts of the United States to Category:Korean War frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename to better match the contents of the category and to match parent category, Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Digital agencies of the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamrtalk 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Digital agencies of the United Kingdom ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains only two articles, one of which has been nominated for deletion. The name of the category is unclear as to which article should be included and there is no further explanation. The category it is listed as a member of does not exist.RDBury (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable-energy economy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Renewable-energy economy to Category:Renewable energy economy
Nominator's rationale: No dash needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Alan.
  • Oppose. The hyphen is correct, since "renewable-energy" is an adjectival phrase. The hyphen lets us know that the subject of the phrase is "economy", and the phrase that modifies the subject is "renewable-energy". Without the hyphen, the category could be misinterpreted to mean that the subject is "energy economy" and that the energy economy is renewable. Per English grammar, in other words. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also opposse to the renaming because of the same reason. --Nopetro (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Renewable-energy law

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Xdamrtalk 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Renewable-energy law to Category:Renewable energy law
Nominator's rationale: No dash needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be a better name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Law includes legislation. So, legislation in the future can be a sub-category in the law main category. --Nopetro (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The hyphen is correct, since "renewable-energy" is an adjectival phrase. The hyphen lets us know that the subject of the phrase is "law", and the phrase that modifies the subject is "renewable-energy". Without the hyphen, the category could be misinterpreted to mean that the subject is "energy law" and that the energy law is renewable. Per English grammar, in other words. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also opposse to the renaming because of the same reason. --Nopetro (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand Autonomous crown entities

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:New Zealand autonomous Crown entities
Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Autonomous crown entities to Category:New Zealand autonomous crown entities
Nominator's rationale: Rename for better capitalisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_1
No tags for this post.