Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Categories | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Deletion | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
|
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Template:Cfr-speedy
Minor disagreement over format of {{Cfr-speedy}}.
Comments sought at Template talk:Cfr-speedy#Format_of_text_to_be_pasted_into_WP:CFD.2FS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
[edit] Add requirement that category creators be notified
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I suggest that a requirement be added to the WP:CFD page that category creators must be notified. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. This has been discussed a number of times in the recent past. Personally, I used to notify category creators every time I nominated a category. I felt it was the right thing to do. I got so much abuse resulting from doing this, that now I rarely do it. Users wiki-yelled at me regularly and asked me to stop spamming them. And I can't say I really blame them, because I too hate getting notified. If I care about a category and its existence or the way its named, I add it to my watchlist. Thus, if a category creator cares about the category he created, he should add it to his watchlist. There is a requirement that the category be tagged, which serves as notification for all those who place the category on his watchlist, not just he creator. It is the easiest way to notify everyone who might have an interest in the category. Nominating a category is difficult enough, especially for beginners. I oppose any move to place more burden on the nominator for information that others should be able to manage themselves through maintaining their watchlist. (Ultimately, I think someone's going to make a proposal that no edit can be made to any page without first notifying the creator. ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - as pointed out above, watchlisting categories you are interested in serves the purpose without any added Wikibureaucracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - per above; also with many categories having been renamed at least once the bot is now registered as the "creator" of many of them rather than the original compiler so the proposal would often not have the desired effect anyway. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. This is not a vote. If it were, then deletionists would always win on these type of category deletionist/renamer talk pages. Some people initiating the category deletion/renames may not want the bother of notifying the category creators, because some category creators don't want to be notified. This is a bogus reason not to notify the category creators. I and many others believe that category creators should be notified.
People complain about the lack of participation in category discussions. Requiring notification would help for any type of category renaming or discussion. Getting complaints for notifying people comes with the work. Edit summaries are not a great way to notify category creators. The edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as "cfr rename" or "cfd" or "speedy" or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases. Also, many times there are later edits to clarify the deletion notice. So category creators may not ever see any notice of deletion, because later clarification edits may only say something like "clarify."
The root problem is the desire for speedy renames by some category deletionist/renamers. Almost anything that slows them down they try to do away with. They write the rules for the most part at pages such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. The associated talk pages are mostly a waste of time for someone like me, since they are populated mostly by fulltime category deletionist/renamers. That is why attempts to get notification of category creators goes nowhere.
Concerning speedy renames, it actually does not take any more time in the end if all category deletion/renames were done via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and eliminating speedy renames for the most part. It all rotates around to getting done. Doing speedy renames based on article names is going to cause many problems since categories don't always line up neatly with articles.
Notifying category creators does take some time. Maybe a bot could be created to notify category creators. If they were notified then Wikipedia would keep more people donating money. Many people stop donating to Wikipedia due to deletions, and especially speedy deletions. Deletions in general, not just categories. See:
- - meta:Wikimedia Forum#Why I will not donate this year - you may have to hunt for the subsection if this link does not take you directly there.
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline - ignore the closer comment that insults people's motivations. It may take some reading to understand that discussion. But notice that other people soon joined in discussing their problems related to deletions, especially speedy deletions. Many people have discussed the problem of non-admin closes of category discussions. Per WP:NAC. Just like speedy renames, both are resolved incorrectly if done without unambiguous consensus. Requiring notification, getting rid of speedy deletions, and banning non-admin closes would go a long way towards stopping the abuse, the mistakes, and the lack of accountability. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- If category creators are not to be notified, then I believe that interested WikiProjects should be notified instead. I shouldn't have had to do this and this myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Redrose. WikiProjects are less likely to take such a nomination personally, and more likely to add value to the discussions if there are good reasons to keep. —WFC— 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, but which Wikiprojects? See this essay for some of the related problems in making that a requirement. Again, this has been mooted before. Wikiprojects need to do their own work and maintain their own watchlists and not slough off the onus onto other editors. (Regarding Timeshifter's long comment, I hardly think that engaging in name calling or labelling of other editors ("deletionists", "renamers", and so forth) is going to progress anything one way or the other. And non-admin closures at CFD are exceedingly rare, so I think it's overkill to simply ban non-admin closures at CFD based on one non-admin closure that an editor has disagreed with. If "many people" have discussed this issue, I'd like to know what specific cases they are so worried about, because it hardly ever happens. In other words, I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. The DRV on the specific issue has run its course and it looks like it has been resolved with a simple trout smack, so I think we can move on from it ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- For a process to assert the right to undermine a WikiProject's category system and then attack the competence of its volunteers is incredible. I'd counter it by saying that if a tagger is not competent enough to work out how a category is used, what makes them competent enough to decide whether or not it should exist? Nonetheless, taking into account the logistical point made in that essay, I'd suggest that if a category is tagged with a WikiProject banner, that WikiProject must be notified. —WFC— 07:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I reject the implication in your first sentence that a category somehow belongs to any particular Wikiproject. Wikiprojects are just clubs of users who work together—nothing more. Not even those who begin AFD nominations are required to notify these groups, so there is no reason to make an exception for categories. Keep a watchlist and check it. Or make a bot that notifies you when a category is tagged. Just don't make others do the work that you can do for yourself if only you stop expecting others to do it. I'm always skeptical of any suggestion coming from anyone that makes more work for someone else and less for the person doing the suggesting. Besides, any experise which may reside within a Wikiproject will often be irrelevant to a category discussion—as when, for instance, the category clearly falls within one of the provisions of WP:OC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The failure to notify anyone involved with a category (or article, template, file etc) of a deletion discussion is an implicit assumption that everyone who uses the category (or article, template, file etc) is an idiot or troll. Thus, the onus is on the nominator to show that this assumption is not being made. —WFC— 09:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- No, it's an assumption that people know how to use watchlists and that if they are interested in when a category gets nominated they will add it to their watchlist and check their watchlist. That's the entire purpose of requiring tagging of the category. You're suggesting that we create an extra layer of bureaucracy merely because there are editors who are too lazy to use the current system which has been designed for exactly the same purpose that you are trying to accomplish through other means. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Consider Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 16#Railway infrastructure in London, where one of the proposed moves was Category:Railway stations in London to Category:Rail transport stations in London. The talk page for that cat, which is now at Category talk:Rail transport stations in London, has three WikiProject banners. This tells me that those projects are interested in the cat - I don't think that any of them claim to "own" the category; but I'll warrant that the cat was populated primarily by contributors to those projects. Such contributors are likely to have the category member pages (the articles) watchlisted, but are unlikely to have watchlisted the actual category pages, unless they had actually edited it, or like me, they accidentally bumped into the CFD page (and no, I can't remember how I found it). So, the only way that the majority will know is when a bot goes around changing the category on the article page, as here, and they suddenly think "Hold on - why didn't I know that this was going to happen?"
- Point is: the only way that WP:LT and WP:RAIL found out is because I told them, and I only found out by accident - I wasn't told myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- It sounds to me like the solution is to add categories to your watchlist so you can watch them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the requirement to notify WikiProjects is beneficial. If they want to notified the should tag the pages in their scope and subscribe to AAlertBots Article alert reports via banner subscription as 531 other WikiProject have already done so. (BTW WP:RAIL already subscribes, and even transcluded to the project page. Just watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts and you will be notified. The CFD discussion mentioned by Redrose64 was added to this page.) Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- The failure to notify anyone involved with a category (or article, template, file etc) of a deletion discussion is an implicit assumption that everyone who uses the category (or article, template, file etc) is an idiot or troll. Thus, the onus is on the nominator to show that this assumption is not being made. —WFC— 09:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I reject the implication in your first sentence that a category somehow belongs to any particular Wikiproject. Wikiprojects are just clubs of users who work together—nothing more. Not even those who begin AFD nominations are required to notify these groups, so there is no reason to make an exception for categories. Keep a watchlist and check it. Or make a bot that notifies you when a category is tagged. Just don't make others do the work that you can do for yourself if only you stop expecting others to do it. I'm always skeptical of any suggestion coming from anyone that makes more work for someone else and less for the person doing the suggesting. Besides, any experise which may reside within a Wikiproject will often be irrelevant to a category discussion—as when, for instance, the category clearly falls within one of the provisions of WP:OC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- For a process to assert the right to undermine a WikiProject's category system and then attack the competence of its volunteers is incredible. I'd counter it by saying that if a tagger is not competent enough to work out how a category is used, what makes them competent enough to decide whether or not it should exist? Nonetheless, taking into account the logistical point made in that essay, I'd suggest that if a category is tagged with a WikiProject banner, that WikiProject must be notified. —WFC— 07:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I love this: "Wikiprojects are just clubs of users who work together—nothing more." Well, so are deletionist/renamers. By the way, that is not an insult, nor meant as an insult. It is an accurate description of what is being done. The fact that some rude, smug, abusive, or speedy deletionists are despised, does not make all deletionists rude, nor despised. I delete/rename/create categories all the time on the Commons. Hundreds of them.
I observe that Good Ol’factory and some others here have ignored my point that edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as "cfr rename" or "cfd" or "speedy" or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases. Also, many times there are later edits to clarify the deletion notice. So category creators may not ever see any notice of deletion, because later clarification edits may only say something like "clarify." So watchlisting alone is not the solution. The deletionist/renamers need to notify people.
I suggest you create a bot to do it. Then the bot talk page can get any nasty replies. Notifying wikiprojects is helpful, but many wikiproject members don't check wikiproject pages daily, or even weekly. Many wikiprojects go through phases of involvement by its members.
The only sure way is to notify category creators on their talk page. It is easy to create a {{cfd notify}} template to paste onto talk pages. That template should say that notification is required, and if they don't want to be notified they need to put a one-sentence {{no cfd notify}} tag at the top of their page. The {{cfd notify}} template should also link to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion so people can discuss notification. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- What you call "deletionists/renamers" is not a close analog to Wikiprojects because they do not purport to organise themselves into a formal group or club. It's an inaccurate analogy—apples to oranges, etc. "I observe that Good Ol’factory and some others here have ignored my point that edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as 'cfr rename' or 'cfd' or 'speedy' or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases." That's why there's a diff button you can click on on your watchlist. Just click it and look if you don't know what the summary means. As for later edits being made after the CFD nomination, if you really care about something and you see an edit pop up on your watchlist, you should click on the history button to see if there were earlier edits. These are basics of WP watchlisting that I think most editors pick up on rather quickly. If you want a bot to notify you, that's great—you make the bot. But it's unlikely there will be any enthusiasm for creating new bureaucratic requirements for everyone else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- People have hundreds or thousands of pages on their watchlists. People scan their watchlists, not diffs. Marcus Qwertyus pointed out higher up that he has 7,000 pages on his watchlist. Why is it so difficult for you to paste in {{cfd notify|CATEGORY NAME}} on the category creator's talk page? If a bot created the category, then you don't do anything. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have far more than 7000 pages on my watchlist, and I have no problem keeping track of category edits. You can do what you want bot-wise, just don't make editors do your work for you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- People have hundreds or thousands of pages on their watchlists. People scan their watchlists, not diffs. Marcus Qwertyus pointed out higher up that he has 7,000 pages on his watchlist. Why is it so difficult for you to paste in {{cfd notify|CATEGORY NAME}} on the category creator's talk page? If a bot created the category, then you don't do anything. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- What you call "deletionists/renamers" is not a close analog to Wikiprojects because they do not purport to organise themselves into a formal group or club. It's an inaccurate analogy—apples to oranges, etc. "I observe that Good Ol’factory and some others here have ignored my point that edit summaries are oftentimes cryptic such as 'cfr rename' or 'cfd' or 'speedy' or such. So the category creators do not notice that the category is being renamed in many cases." That's why there's a diff button you can click on on your watchlist. Just click it and look if you don't know what the summary means. As for later edits being made after the CFD nomination, if you really care about something and you see an edit pop up on your watchlist, you should click on the history button to see if there were earlier edits. These are basics of WP watchlisting that I think most editors pick up on rather quickly. If you want a bot to notify you, that's great—you make the bot. But it's unlikely there will be any enthusiasm for creating new bureaucratic requirements for everyone else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems to me that it would actually be more useful to notify WikiProjects than to notify creators; notifying the projects would get more interested eyes on the CfD. Would it not be possible to run a bot to automatically notify projects based on the project banners on the category talk page? That way no new effort is required of CfD nominators. It could be optional for the project (either opt-in or opt-out). I'm willing to take a stab at developing such a bot if the idea meets with approval. - htonl (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Save yourself - there is already such a bot, AAlertBot (talk · contribs), which is explained further at Wikipedia:Article alerts. It has already been mentioned in this discussion, in fact (hence the bold, so it isn't missed again). If WikiProjects tag the categories within their scope and set up an "Article Alert", then members of that project can watch that page – or even transclude it onto their user page as well – to be informed automatically what is happening to articles, categories and the like within the project's scope. That way (1) nobody has to work out who the creator was (when a category is renamed, the first edit will be by a bot in many cases, a human with no interest in the category in others); (2) nobody has to work out who (if anyone) to notify out of the subsequent editors should be informed; (3) nobody has to work out who to notify if any of these people are inactive or blocked; (4) nobody has to notify individual WikiProjects, whether they have tagged the page or not; (5) members of a WikiProject can see at a glance on one page whether any of their categories are up for discussion and if so, can jump straight to the discussion; (6) we don't drown in a sea of bureaucracy; (7) members of a WikiProject do not have to watchlist every category themselves, merely ensure that their project has tagged all the categories they might need to know about. And yes there is a bot to do that as well... BencherliteTalk 22:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Those are some good tools for Wikiprojects, but category creators may not be members of the relevant Wikiproject. There may not be a Wikiproject that covers that category. I am a member of various Wikiprojects, but I don't have time to watch all the many changes that happen to the tens of thousands of pages covered by those Wikiprojects. I have tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia, the Commons, Wikia, etc.. What I watch daily or every other day are my watchlist and my email. I already pointed out the problem of the cryptic edit summaries, or the relevant edit summary being missed due to later clarifying edits. That is why the watchlist is not enough. So notifying category creators via their talk page is the only way currently to be sure of notifying them. I was just thinking that what is really needed is a modification of the Mediawiki software to allow special entries on the watchlist for CFDs and AFDs. That would solve the problem. See elaboration farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- Support as obviously required out of respect to editors, and in keeping with other delete discussion expectations. Expecting all users to be continuously attentive to their watchlist is unreasonable. Categories needs to stop being a special, mystical place. I thought this was discussed and received consensus long ago. A bot will advise the creator of a category listed at CfD. Users (especially those who frequently rename or otherwise manage categories, or who are already active at CfD, and bots) may opt-out of notifications. All that is needed is for someone to write create the bot. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I thought this was discussed and received consensus long ago." It was and it did, but the consensus was that there was no obligation for a nominator to notify the category creator when a CFD is started. If I remember correctly the basic thrust was that if someone wants a bot to do this for their benefit, they need to design it and get it approved. But as User:Bencherlite points out above, a bot system is already in place for anyone who is interested. You have also mis-stated how different CFD is to other deletion processes. There is never an obligation or requirement to notify the page creator. It is considered a courtesy but failure to do it does not invalidate a discussion or AFD result. (Note here for what AFD says about this.) It is this proposal that is attempting to set up CFD as a place that has special rules, not those in favor of the status quo who are maintaining it as a special place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think I am remembering something a little further along. We understood each other when it was pointed out that many category creators don’t like to be notified, and that then makes it a little onerous for the nominator to work out whether each creator should be notified.
-
-
-
-
-
- The problem with the Bencherlite solution is that it expects the category creators to do something clever. This is incompatible with the assumption that it is new and occasional category creators that want the notifications.
-
-
-
-
-
- Regarding other deletion processes. At AfD, your link, it says “it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors”. In other words, it is generally considered discourteous to not notify. You are arguing the letter of the rule regardless of discourtesy.
-
-
-
-
-
- Timeshifter’s wording is passively worded. I agree with you and others that the onus to notify shouldn’t be on the nominator. I propose that there be a bot that notifies all category creators who have not opted out. Would you disagree with this proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't oppose anyone creating a bot to receive any kind of notifications, as long as the CFD "rule" or guideline on the nominator notifying the creator is no different than those for AFD and other processes. And those who want the bot need to develop it and get it approved, not those who don't care to have a bot or are indifferent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That’s fair. Would you, in principle, support the notion of someone seeking to have a bot written and approved to notify non-opted-out category creators? For the sake of infrequent category creators who don’t watch their watchlist? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with anyone seeking to write a bot to do any sort of notifications that they would like to receive. I guess you could put me in the "indifferent" category for that. (Just a side point, but I've been thinking about it and I'm not really sure that not doing something that is courteous automatically means that you are being discourteous. For instance, in my culture, it would be extremely courteous of me to help an old woman cross a street on a pedestrian crossing, but if I encountered an old woman at a pedestrian crossing and did not offer to help her cross the street, I don't think anyone would suggest I was being discourteous.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are younger than I thought? If she showed any signs of hesitancy or frailty, I would consider it discourteous to not help. If I were driving, I wouldn't stop, but I think that is because being inside a car tends to make everyone discourteous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Probably just a cultural difference. Anyway, my point is that actions or omissions are not either courteous or discourteous—some are just kind of neutral, even if they are the opposite action of what would be considered courteous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are younger than I thought? If she showed any signs of hesitancy or frailty, I would consider it discourteous to not help. If I were driving, I wouldn't stop, but I think that is because being inside a car tends to make everyone discourteous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with anyone seeking to write a bot to do any sort of notifications that they would like to receive. I guess you could put me in the "indifferent" category for that. (Just a side point, but I've been thinking about it and I'm not really sure that not doing something that is courteous automatically means that you are being discourteous. For instance, in my culture, it would be extremely courteous of me to help an old woman cross a street on a pedestrian crossing, but if I encountered an old woman at a pedestrian crossing and did not offer to help her cross the street, I don't think anyone would suggest I was being discourteous.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- That’s fair. Would you, in principle, support the notion of someone seeking to have a bot written and approved to notify non-opted-out category creators? For the sake of infrequent category creators who don’t watch their watchlist? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't oppose anyone creating a bot to receive any kind of notifications, as long as the CFD "rule" or guideline on the nominator notifying the creator is no different than those for AFD and other processes. And those who want the bot need to develop it and get it approved, not those who don't care to have a bot or are indifferent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Not a vote, but for clarity Oppose. As far as I am aware no other discussion forum (AfD, MfD, RfD), nor other deletion method (CSD, prod), requires that creators be notified. Most have it rightly as a strong recommendation, with the words:It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the ... that you are nominating...". I don't see how CfD needs to be any different. The wording at CfD is currently: Consider adding {{subst:Cfdnotice|Cfd section name|date=yyyy Month d}} to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. I would support strengthening the wording to encourage this template to be used more often. (The information on the notification bot provided by Bencherlite seems like an ideal solution that WikiProjects should definitely utilize). Tassedethe (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- That {{Cfdnotice}} notice is good, but it is not for the category creator's talk page. There is no info at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion recommending that the category creator be notified. Notifying the category creator is mentioned only vaguely as a subclause of a sentence. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support as a baby step towards a requirement that all creators of material subject to deletion debate be required. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support because it's the right thing to do. Furthermore, the argument that you shouldn't notify the creator of a category that it is being put up for deletion because you don't want to get flak for doing so from upset users is, while understandable, a really awful argument. Have you seen the kind of stuff that the admins that delete articles or files get? Yes, it sucks to get yelled at by, for the large part, people who are either uninformed about policy or who are so emotionally invested in their work that they see a deletion nomination as an attack on their person, but it's a fact of the job. Avoiding notifying people because you don't want them to react badly simply isn't ethical. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think the difference here is that the flak isn't necessarily because of the deletion or renaming of the category, but because of repeated notifications (according to Good Olfactory's comment above). While articles can in most cases be renamed without starting a separate discussion, categories must always go through either CFD or CFD/Speedy. We don't require article creators to be notified of move requests. Jafeluv (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- The difference is that renaming a category is usually the same as deleting the category. A banner can be created {{no cfd notice}} for user talk pages. That banner can be listed in the {{cfd notice}}. So people can copy {{no cfd notice}} to their user talk pages. As Sven said: "Avoiding notifying people because you don't want them to react badly simply isn't ethical." We are also losing editors because of deletions, speedy deletions, rude deletions, unnotified deletions, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, 99% of the time there is a vast difference between a proposal to rename a category and a proposal to delete it. Many rename proposals are quite bland and boring—just renaming things to standardize formatting between categories, and so forth. This is a far cry from a proposal to delete, and I doubt even the editors who are most possessive of "their" creations would equate the two processes. And as long as "ethics" comes into the discussion: I don't find it ethical to require users to do work for other users when the other users can quite easily accomplish what they seek by use of a pre-existing wiki tool called the watchlist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is that renaming a category is usually the same as deleting the category. A banner can be created {{no cfd notice}} for user talk pages. That banner can be listed in the {{cfd notice}}. So people can copy {{no cfd notice}} to their user talk pages. As Sven said: "Avoiding notifying people because you don't want them to react badly simply isn't ethical." We are also losing editors because of deletions, speedy deletions, rude deletions, unnotified deletions, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- Modification of the Mediawiki software. I have been thinking that what is really needed is a modification of the Mediawiki software to allow special entries on the watchlist for CFDs and AFDs. That would help solve the problem. I (and others here probably) have a bugzilla account. See Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Another possibility is to add an entry in Special:Preferences (user profile tab) similar to "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed". A new entry called "E-mail me when an item on my watchlist is being discussed for deletion." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Sounds good. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- See Bugzilla bug 32952. "Email notification and special-color watchlist notification when articles or categories are up for deletion or renaming." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- Support per Sven Manguard's comment above. And as SmokeyJoe and Timeshifter have said, expecting editors to continuously monitor their watchlists is ridiculous, especially for those with large amounts of pages on their watchlists. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm having a logic failure with "expecting editors to continuously monitor their watchlists is ridiculous, especially for those with large amounts of pages on their watchlists." - then why do they have the pages watched at all if they're not actually, well, watching them? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The word continuously is rather important here. I found the watchlisting process started to breakdown after my watchlist hit five figures. I still find my watchlist useful, but can no longer even skim the whole list every day, let alone catchup if I'm off wiki for a few days. Perhaps if I could drastically trim it to say 12,000 or so pages.... ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm having a logic failure with "expecting editors to continuously monitor their watchlists is ridiculous, especially for those with large amounts of pages on their watchlists." - then why do they have the pages watched at all if they're not actually, well, watching them? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support If you want to delete goodfaith contributions you should inform the contributors, happy to see exceptions for contributors who've died, retired or been banned. But the default should be to inform - and I'm afraid this needs to be a rule not just a "should" because otherwise some people will ignore it as optional. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support, this isn't already the default? Of course, any page creator should be informed when their pages are put up for deletion. These notices aren't spam, and if someone believes that, explain why you sent them. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as requirement, support as guideline. When using Twinkle, there's a checkmark that says "Notify creator if possible." I encourage its use for non-speedy renaming. (Speedy renamings by nature should be trivial, and thus not need the notification.) But what I don't want is a requirement, because I don't think closes should be invalidated on the grounds that the creator was not notified. The category creator is really no more an owner of the category than anyone else. It's a courtesy, and a good one, but it shouldn't be a rule.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as requirement, support as guideline. per Mike. As for me, I always click the notify creator box on TW. As for notifying WikiProjects, I do it from time to time. I've not found there to be much of a response, when I do.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support as guideline / expected norm per the comments above (and I'm amazed that it isn't already). While AFD &c may not have an explicit requirement to notify, there is a strong assumption that doing so is correct and expected; the same should be true for categories. If watchlisting isn't considered a reliable notification method for articles or images, why is it sufficient here? Shimgray | talk | 15:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support as a general rule. There are situations where this is either undesirable or difficult - for example, if a category has been renamed and a non-admin wants to rename it, (s)he can't find out who the original creater was; on the other hand, notifying the account who created the last version of the article is clearly wrong - this user is probably either the closing admin or Cydebot, neither of who is necessarily interested in it. And frequently a user sees a family of related categories and adds an other one; if the whole group is nominated, this one user is frequently an ininterested party. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. This rule will not accomplish sufficient good to outweigh the negativity of adding another rule. Controversial nominations do not suffer from the creator not being informed because they're already drawing sufficient input. Non-controversial nominations aren't controversial. --erachima talk 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Aside from what I wrote in my essay about wikiproject notification, I disagree with this as a requirement. As is mentioned above and elsewhere, if you are concerned about a category you created, watchlist it. Most categories, after creation, are edited very little. So if it shows up in your watchlist, you know something is going on, and should look into it. It is up to you to keep track of what you're interested in; it's not up to someone else. In addition, Old Mishehu is correct about who to notify. I can't tell you how many times I or my bot are notified about a category simply because I was the closing admin or my bot did the move. --Kbdank71 04:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Can I assume, as I think you indicated to me previously, that you would not be displeased if there were a CfD-notification-bot that auto-notified category creators when the category is listed at CfD, and where you may opt out of all notifications, and where all bots are opted-out by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- Oppose; I don't think it would be helpful to require this. It's usually a good idea to do it, but that's not a sound basis for mandating it in all cases. The bot proposal sounds reasonable to me too. bobrayner (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose this and any proposal like it. Of course it is normally the polite thing to do, but making it an absolute requirement is not a good idea. Persons who create a category and supposedly care about it should be watchlisting them anyway, and sometimes the creator is no longer an active editor so the requirement would accomplish nothing in such cases. WP:CREEP would be another reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose this proposal, notification is good practice and something that should be encouraged, but the mandating of this will just end up with a whole lot of Wikilawyering. Mtking (edits) 10:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Userboxes.
|
|
Here are some userboxes. It is too much to expect many category workers to give a damn. One thing that may change things over time is community understanding, and support for change. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think "category workers" should be characterized as not giving a damn. Several users have outlined decent reasons as to why the proposal should not be accepted and others have outlined decent reasons why it should be accepted. But a user's acceptance or rejection of a specific proposal is not a window into the user's soul and it does not reveal what they do and do not give a damn about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support CFD participation is in terminal decline, and the time debates are left open gets ever shorter. I have over 11,000 pages on my watchlist, and have missed a few nominations. There is no good reason not to do this. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
[edit] Nominator notification for contested
Wouldn't it seem reasonable to notify the nominator of contested speedy nominations? The speedy page gets so many updates and I don't review them all, but I'd really like to know when my own nominations are contested. Since the majority of these nominations are completed without opposition, such notification seems like a reasonable burden to put on those who oppose the nominations. – Pnm (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary every time that a nomination is contested, as nominators (especially CFD regulars) often revisit the speedy page multiple times within the 48-hour window, but it may be a useful practice when moving a listing to the 'Opposed' section (assuming, of course, that the nominator hasn't already replied). I'm considering something along the lines of:
-
An editor has voiced a concern or objection regarding your nomination to speedily rename Category:Foo to Category:Bar. Your thoughts, if you would like to share them, would be appreciated at the category's entry on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy page.
- For notifying CFD/S regulars, a shorter and more direct "someone's objected to one of your WP:CFD/S nominations" probably would work. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Black Falcon, you shouldn't place an obligation on the objector. If you nominate something at CfD then you are obliged to make the time for it, to monitor it and follow it through yourself and have it on your watch list. it should be your obligation to spend the extra time, not the objector. Ephebi (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- An objection should be enough to torpedo the nomination, and when it hasn't been changed after a couple of days, that should be warning enough. Like with the proposal below, this falls under "If you set it in motion, it's your responsibility to keep up with it."--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Add requirement that Projects be notified when associated categories are discussed
A requirement should be added to the WP:CFD page that Wikiprojects must be notified when a related category is proposed for modification or deletion. This would be a duty of the nominator at the time of nomination.
Rationale: By contacting the Project talk page it is more likely that Project editors (who will often know the subject in hand far better than the nominator) will be aware of the change and familiarise themselves with the impact of the change. Placing this administrative burden on the CfD nominator will reduce the disruption that contentious or poorly thought-through CfD nominations cause. By making the nominator think about the relevant Project, it will improve the quality of the CfD proposal.
Tendentious nominations are the category world's equivalent of 3RR but are never censured. An earlier proposal to notify category creators met no consensus, but it raised the idea of notifying Projects when a CfD proposal came about. This has got a lot of merit. The CfD process has been abused for some time by full-time CfD editors. They repeatedly submit categories for renaming or deletion, in the full knowledge that it was previously contentious, while avoiding notifying previous participants in the earlier CfD (whose logical arguments caused a similar proposal to be rejected.) (Per Timeshifter writing here on 7 December 2011: The root problem is the desire for speedy renames by some category deletionist/renamers. Almost anything that slows them down they try to do away with.) IME requests to the nominator to contact parties with an interest in the topic are mostly ignored. When I have had the time to do it myself I have been accused of canvassing! This rudeness causes ill-will. When some of these changes are rejected the nominator may wait for a few months, then try to resubmit the offending categories piecemeal or in small groups which can slip in 'under the radar'. They then claim it as a "standard" to set as a precedent for rolling out those other changes. This sneaky behaviour forces editors away from editing to keep an eye on changes being proposed at CfD. Ephebi (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support, see my comments of 7-8 December 2011. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sidenote: Don't forget you can subscribe and follow project-specific CfD-related matters at Article Alerts! — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC) </shameless plug>
- I think it would be easier to have a bot automatically notify any project that has a tag on a category's page whenever any CFD/CFR/CSD tag is placed on it. That way we wouldn't have to worry about the nominator's compliance and can avoid the "didn't follow correct procedure" arguments and resultant ill will that distracts from the substance. If the category does not have a project tag, then I don't think we can reasonably expect notification, unless there's some way to make the bot have subcategories "inherit" project tags from parents. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- A good point. An automatic alert might seem attractive, but IMHO the problem arises because people are nominating CfDs without engaging with or considering the impact on the projects. I think there may be technical issues in defining the project reliably. Requiring a nominator to a) identify the project and b) insert their own notification will make them consider and communicate with the project's editors. It will start to make nominators more responsible and accountable to editors who will often know much more about the subject and its nuances. For that reason, I expect some of the regular CfD nominators will object to this proposal ;-) (The work of the CfD regulars in fixing mundane typos or ill-considered categories with be largely unaltered, as they will often lay outside the scope of a project.) Ephebi (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, for three reasons. First, this is not useful in most cases as most category changes are neither controversial nor require special attention. Second, this can be counterproductive: notifying WikiProjects of every discussion would diminish the impact of notifications in those cases where it is really needed, since spamming project talk pages with multiple notifications each week will cause their members to build up a tolerance to and simply ignore them. Third, this requirement is redundant to Wikipedia:Article Alerts, which is a much more efficient mechanism that operates on an opt-in basis.
It is a good idea, in my opinion, to notify WikiProjects (and it's easy enough to do using {{Cfd-notify}}) when a proposed change is controversial or involves a large number of categories, but the proposal as written imposes an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)- By the way: "The CfD process has been abused for some time by full-time CfD editors."[citation needed] :-) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. When it is obvious who would care about a category, it certainly is a nice thing to notify them. But I'm not interested in a policy that requires it. (Side note: It always amazes me when someone conjures a long string of insults aimed at the people he's trying to convince to support his position. It makes it feel more like this is a nomination designed to get CfD editors to reject it so that a point can be made later. That may not be the intent, but it is how it makes me feel when I read it.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mike, I think that the purpose of this discussion was slightly different. The slective notoifications which Ephebi sent out about this discussion ([1], [2], [3]) include reference to a current CFD, so it appears that even if this discussion was intended as a genuine proposal, it has been cleverly abused as a cover for some blatant votestacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever it is, it isn't particularly friendly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mike, I think that the purpose of this discussion was slightly different. The slective notoifications which Ephebi sent out about this discussion ([1], [2], [3]) include reference to a current CFD, so it appears that even if this discussion was intended as a genuine proposal, it has been cleverly abused as a cover for some blatant votestacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose required. Happy with "recommended". The people above have said it all. And please no on the automatic alert. For one thing, cydebot (and anyone else who helps out at the /Working page) will get flooded with messages. Categories are "created" when renamed or merged to a not-currently-existing target. - jc37 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sneaky behaviour is what Ephebi alleges in the opening post of this discussion. This is the same Ephebi who only a few minutes later engaged in a deliberate exercise of WP:VOTESTACKING by selectively notifying a group of editors who had supported his view in previous discussions ([4], [5], [6]), without alerting the discussions that any such notifications had been made.
Given such blatant votestacking, I can only assume that the proposal here was made in similar bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) - Oppose per Black Falcon. In many cases, such notifications should be encouraged as good practice. However, making them a requirement can add a huge amount of bureaucracy and information overload which is not always appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Strengthen the language on WP:CfD that suggests notifying category creators and Wikiprojects. "Requirements" of this nature are problematic, IMO, as they inevitably lead to pointless wikilawyering. However, more extensive notification is needed for CfD. Considering how few categories most of us have watchlisted, it is appallingly easy for people who aren't religiously involved with this page to overlook CfDs that affect categories we care about. The language currently on the page regarding notifications ("See the doc page at Cfdnotice for more information on how to use this template as well as other similar templates that can be used to notify the category's creator or related WikiProjects specifically") is about as weak as a suggestion could be (and it's not even particularly visible on the page). A separate bulleted item that says something like "Consider adding {{subst:cfd-notify|Cfd section name|date=yyyy Month d}} to the talk pages of the category's creator or related WikiProjects to alert potentially interested users to the proposed change" would be far more effective -- and should be added. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm good with that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Falcon's and BrownHairedGirl's comments - and also a {{trout}} to the nominator for engaging in what can only be seen as an attempted end-around of WP:CANVASS. Orlady's proposal does have merit, though, and might be considered for implementing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Request for adminship
With the goal of encouraging more longtime CfD editors to become admins, I've nominated User:Fayenatic london for adminship. If you have opinions on this request, please add them on the RfA page. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
