Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10

10 May 2021

Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter

Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Misinterpretation/misrepresentation of consensus 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn and declare the original nomination beyond scope. As requester. The closing opinion misrepresented the consensus by claiming no means yes. The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping (with the same name or with another name). The closing opinion basically twists the "keep but rename" position to mean "delete as rename". In order to do this, a third, non-existent option is invented: "recreate and rename". Apart from the absurdity, this goes against both the letter and spirit of the "keep but rename" position, held by almost 50% of the participants.

  There is no consensus for the "delete" position and the close should be overturned.

  Note that the original nomination happened as the fate of the category was already being discussed at its project page. Apart from jumping the gun by bringing it here in the midst of discussion, there is the question of whether narrow tracking categories fall under the scope of CfD. The closing opinion with the novelty of "recreate=rename" effectively treats it as a "discouraged category". Following the closing revision, the nomination may be explicitly marked as void. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • In case this is not clear, I was an active participant in the discussion, under various unregistered (IP) handles. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the CfD close as nominator, and perhaps some admin can reread the CfD and remind the IP (and some others) about WP:CIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON. No idea where the claim comes from that CfD shouldn't be the place to discuss the fate of hidden categories placed more than 1 million articles and for which no actual purpose is formulated ("tracking" is not a purpose, "tracking" is just another word for "categorizing" in this instance, the question is what one would do with these and why these are being singled out, considering that the discussion which lead to the creation of the cat was overturned and these parameters clearly indicated as perfectly acceptable ones which aren't discouraged, deprecated, or to be replaced by synonyms). Whatever the result of the DRV, closing the CfD as "void" would be totally wrong. Fram (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The closer wrote From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be. At the time of the close, that discussion had already happened at Help Talk:CS1, and the code to implement consensus-approved, neutrally named tracking categories had been implemented in the sandbox, allowing the modules to neutrally track any parameters of interest (as we have been doing for many years with parameters like |authors=). We had been waiting for this CFD to close before implementing the new neutral category names, in case there was some additional nuance that needed to be accounted for. Perhaps jc37 (the closer) could look at this linked discussion and see if it meets their criteria for such a discussion, and then formally endorse those new category names so that we don't have to go through all this again. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse (I argued for deletion, so I'm involved) but I don't see that the close misrepresents the consensus at all. It's clear that this discussion came to a consensus that a category called "CS1 maint: discouraged parameter" should not exist. I also see a consensus that a category to track these redirects shouldn't exist under another name either - that consensus isn't as strong but it is still extant when you read the arguments presented rather than just look at who shouted loudest and/or most often. I haven't looked at the help talk discussion yet, but if that came to the consensus Jonesey95 says it did then we have a problem of parallel discussions coming to opposite consensuses (which is why having parallel discussions is usually a bad idea). I would argue that a well-attended CfD following a well-attended RfC that came to essentially the same conclusion is more likely to be the stronger consensus than one in an obscure location, but that's not the sort of thing one editor should be deciding alone (regardless of which editor that is). Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thryduulf that parallel discussions are a bad idea. A discussion about removing the "discouraged parameter" category had already been in progress for more than 24 hours when the CFD was created, and clear consensus had already formed there that the category should be deleted. Hence, there was no reason for the CFD to exist at all (as I wrote at the CFD: ... currently being discussed at Help Talk:CS1. This discussion is moot; there is no disagreement at HT:CS1 that the current tracking category name needs to change.). The CFD and its subsequent close just muddied the waters. It should have been procedurally closed as redundant, IMHO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • CfD is the correct venue for disputing the existence of a category, and the CfD supersedes the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 per WP:CONLEVEL. This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus at the same place (to run Monkbot 18) that was shown to be inconsistent with broader community consensus, and the same mistake should not be made again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

      And exactly how many tracking categories have been previously discussed at CfD? How many of that set were brought here while their fate was being discussed at their project's page? How many of that smaller set have been nominated because of the opinion that their existence is somehow irrevocably tied to an RfC? Take your time answering, but some data would be forthcoming. But this concerns only the proposal that the nomination should be voided. There is the more immediate issue that the closer knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented positions in order to arrive at a false consensus to delete. 69.193.187.30 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

      I don't feel like digging through the entire sixteen-year history of CfD to answer that question, but this is by no means the first tracking category to be listed at CfD. Some other such discussions that I can remember of the top of my head are Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 25#Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata (closed as delete), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (closed as no consensus), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (closed as keep), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 16#Category:Template:drugs.com link with non-standard subpage (closed as delete), and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description (closed as keep). That last one was in fact subject to a parallel discussion on the project page, and yet the discussion was considered valid and in-scope of CfD (even though there was consensus to keep), so this isn't some once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and your proposal to void the discussion as outside of CfD's scope is clearly unreasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

      It could be that is not unreasonable at all. It seems rare, because bringing a nomination when a parallel discussion is going on seems rare. I notice that in the last example, many of the same "keep" arguments were made as were made here. The other examples of the categories that were deleted are not good. One was nominated by the editor who originally created the category and it was a 3-comment "discussion". The other one, which was relisted, involved the case of a category similar to 3 others. None of the examples seem like they needed to be brought here. They could have been resolved at the respective project pages. But this is an aside. First the fate of the closing must be decided. 64.18.9.198 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

      This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus at the same place (to run Monkbot 18)... Here, same place refers to Help talk:Citation Style 1 mentioned in the preceding sentence. This is not true. The consensus to run Monkbot 18 was the result of the normal WP:BRFA approval process at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 18. Help talk:CS1 was not the source of consensus to run Monkbot 18.

      —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

      Valid point. Struck those four words, but my general concern is still relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

      This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus (to run Monkbot 18)... is still not true. The Monkbot 18 consensus was not a local consensus. The consensus that allowed Monkbot 18 to run was determined at a properly constituted WP:BRFA (here). Bots do not run unless they have gained non-local consensus at WP:BRFA.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn We should be discouraging the parameters (actually, we should be removing them entirely,) the RfC was wrongly decided by giving too much weight to WP:ILIKEIT grounds over the proper concerns of the maintainers of the templates. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This DRV is not the place to re-litigate the original RfC, or it's close, but only to determine whether the closure of the CfD that it is reviewing actually reflected consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Gee, SF, you expected the CFD closer to overturn the RFC result, after the first RFC close had already been overturned? :-P Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The entire thing is a mess. The CFD assumes this is no longer a useful category, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you to User:Pppery for notifying me of this discussion. - jc37 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Endorse (as closer) - I suppose the first thing I should mention is that CfD (from very long standing consensus) stands for "Categories for discussion", not "Categories for deletion", as the IP nom seems to presume when stating: "...The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping..." - CfD can result in any number of results, such as redirecting, merging, category tree re-organisation, and even deprecation/removal from templates or modules which populate categories.

  And all but one person commenting in the Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RFC_reclosed also commented in the (later) CFD, so I presume the CfD would be considered the more recent discussion, and had more participants.

  For the rest, I'll defer to the close. - jc37 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not presume anything. The category was nominated for deletion by the nominator. There is no gray area here. It is either deleted, or something else... which would be one of non-deleted options, maybe? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse No real argument is presented for overturning this close, other than claims that CfD is the wrong venue, which I adequately refuted above, bare assertions that there is no consensus for the "delete" position without substantiation (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Not making any real points), the claim that [the rename position was] held by almost 50% of the participants (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Vote counts), and an attempt to re-litigate the underlying dispute (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#AfD-like comments) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Stating that "No real argument is presented for overturning this close" seems specious. Re-read the reasoning for the deletion review at the top of this thread. As I noted at the CfD page before, repeated here:

Closing opinion

However, this is WP:CFD, and probably not the place to determine how and where to clean up all of whatever may or may not have been left from an RFC (and its closing and re-closing).

My observation

If that is so, an opinion should not have been rendered. Is this the right forum or not? Notice, as it was pointed out by several people, that the category was already the subject of discussion at its project page. The nominator could have continued the discussion there. Instead it was brought to CfD.

Closing opinion

Those who suggest that this could be kept, mostly also agreed that it needed to be renamed/repurposed in light of the reverted RFC closure. Which, in category terms, essentially involves removal of the existing category, and re-creation under the new name.

My observation

This is an entirely novel definition of "renaming" (there is no "repurposing" as the sole purpose of tracking categories is to track). Renaming a category involves... editing the category name... removal and recreation would be absurd.

Closing opinion

And in the discussion below, there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.

My observation

??? Clarify? "Recreated" and "renamed" are not the same thing. Which one is the "no consensus" applying to? And if it applies to renaming, how is the "no consensus" evident? It is as valid, or more valid, to state that there is no consensus to delete.

Closing opinion

From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.

My observation

Irrelevant. Unless there is a new guideline regarding the creation of tracking\maintenance categories that I am unaware of.

The reasoning for this deletion review at the OP summarizes the above. As stated there, the consensus for deletion is manufactured. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

And in any case, the fate of this DRV will ultimately rest with an uninvolved administrator. The closer stated his/her opinion. I think it is a wrong opinion, and it was laid out at the OP and above. So here we are. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. I'm afraid the discouraged-parameters-are-bad people are going to have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve so many edits. This is a big deal because the sheer number of edits that we're talking about is colossal, with the consequent impact on people's watchlists and attention spans. Volunteer time is our only scarce resource and this is spending a lot of it. Find another way.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

:-) And what exactly has this to do with this deletion review? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to DRV! My contribution above consists of me endorsing the closer's decision and offering my view of how you should proceed. I have not engaged with the arguments in your nomination statement, and I'm not required to. Hope this clarifies.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and you are welcome to DRV too! I am afraid your comment does not clariffy. In your original post you are referring to some parameters and edits. This DRV is primarily about whether the closer was correct in finding that the "delete" option has consensus. Anything to state on that? 66.65.114.61 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm past caring about whether the category exists or not myself, but I do take issue with this close. (Maybe what I am looking for is clarification.)

  On the one hand, it says

  ...there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.

  while on the other it says

  I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.

  Jc37, could you please clarify what you mean in the first quote in context of the second? --Izno (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Happy to. The first was a No Consensus result from this CfD discussion. The second was to try to allow for a way forward, because an XfD close can sometimes be considered a bar to further immediate discussion. Another way to put it: "No prejudice against a follow-up RfC to determine whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.". - jc37 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no policy, guideline, faq or information page in Wikipedia that proposes maintenance (or any) categories have to submit to review in order to be created. Interested editors may or may not discuss the particulars at the related maintenance talk page. This newfangled approach seems to be an attempt to make the absence of real consensus more palatable. 64.18.9.209 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I merely suggest that you might want to read WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

They do not apply here, as you noted in your closing opinion. This is about the closing of a contentious CfD, not about run-of-mill edit-revert cycles. And you still have not explained how you arrived at the decision that deletion has consensus. Well? 64.18.9.198 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn the part that prohibits maintenance tracking categories based on that RFC via normal discussion channels. The issue here was the wording of the "non neutral" term 'discouraged', not the existence of such tracking categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn as this was brought up at the wrong venue and the close didn't appropriately consider this (note: I did support keeping the category, as well as deprecating the parameters. I really wish editors would stop getting in the way of efforts to maintain the complex citation templates we all take for granted). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  CFD is the wrong venue for discussing categories? - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse, CfD is the correct venue for nominating categories for sure, and the history of how the category came into being has been adequately summarized by the closer. Opposers did not disagree on the history, they just did not like the consequence. (In the CfD discussion I voted delete for another reason.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)