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:NO ACTION. Thank you all for the feedback on the proposal, and we have arrived at a point which endorses the removal of the 60-day related sentence, so that there is no particular threshold after which the to-be-listified categories might be deleted. However, I would observe procedurally that normally the status quo is better not altered during a debate discussing it! Thanks also to BrownHairedGirl and DexDor for some heavy lifting this last week on the old listifications. -Splash - tk13:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a lengthy and very old backlog here of categories that were correctly disposed of to listification, but which have not been listified. On checking a few, there seems to be no move to shrink or grow the categories identified, so I conclude that deletion is now appropriate. The rubric indicates they might be deleted after 60 days from being added to that page. However, given (i) the large number of categories and articles involved; and (ii) the long passage of time, I wanted to specifically check and warn on that intention. I propose therefore that we allow this confirmation-CfD to run the usual duration and evaluate then whether to Confirm all or Vacate all of the individual decisions older than 60 days. If people really absolutely must confirm specific days or vacate specific days then OK, but please be specific on the days. I plan to go ahead and feed these to the bots after exactly the 7 day duration, unless there is a clear consensus to vacate (i.e. on the same basis as DRV). A vacated decision would nullify the outcome of the CfD. PS. DRV didn't seem like the appropriate skill set or courtesy direction for this, so I hope people do not object to my unusual use of CfD. Splash - tk23:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points. First, if there is a clock, it should be based on the close and not the nomination. Second, if there is support for this, it should be added to the comments in the work list with a back reference to this discussion. Third, didn't we already discuss this and decide that we could delete after some period of time? Vegaswikian (talk)
On your 2nd and 3rd - The text of the /working/manual page linked above already says that the categories for listification may be deleted after 60 days, so yes I assume(d) that this is in fact already a settled matter. This pseudo-nomination is just to examine whether people want to carry out existing instructions for already eligible categories considering the relative surprise it might spring given the passing of much time since the CfDs. Splash - tk11:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One option is to notify everyone that supported the listify decision. Give them a chance to do the listify before deletion. One wonders how long the work list and the old discussions need to remain in the backlogs based on there is no deadline? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline, but only sort of. My concern is that the page already says that in fact the 'deadline' turns up at 60 days and effectively there is no guarantee at that point as to whether an admin might just delete the to-be-listified categories at any time after that. Splash - tk11:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose People who vote for listify mean and expect that to happen. If the list does not get created, then the category should not be deleted and should be reconstructed if already deleted. Otherwise, the whole discussion process here is deceitful. Hmains (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A decision to listify is a decision to retain the basic information contained in a category, but to present that information in the form of a list instead of in a category. When a CFD discussion results in a decision to listify, deleting the category without listifying would seem to go against the consensus of the discussion. Of course keeping the category forever would also go against the consensus, but deleting without listifying doesn't help move things towards the proper outcome. I see that Vegaswikian added the 60 day limit to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual in June 2013 with this edit, and that he says above that he remembers this being discussed before. However, I wasn't able to find a discussion that set that limit or came to a clear decision to have a limit (though perhaps I missed it). The only discussion I could find was at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_15#Listify_result (a few months before the edit to add the 60 day limit). In that discussion Vegaswikian proposed contacting the people who favored listifying if the listification wasn't happening quickly, and then deleting the category if none of them went through with listifying the catgeory. One other person supported the proposal and one person opposed it, which seems to be no consensus on whether or not to adopt that proposal. I couldn't find another discussion about this topic, so unless someone else knows where the 60 day limit was established, I think it should be removed from the page. I would, however, support contacting anyone who voted for listifying the backlogged categories to ask them if they are willing to go through with making the list. I think it would also make sense to contact any relevant wikiprojects to see if they are willing to make the list. If no one is willing to make the list, I think it would be reasonable to start a new CFD discussion to see if the lists should be kept or deleted without listifying. However, 60 days seems a little too quick to me . . . I might suggest having another CFD if 6 months pass, or something along those lines. Calathan (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary eponymous category as all articles are appropriately categorized by an established scheme of albums/songs and each is easily linkable from the main article, María Isabel. The subcats of works can be linked with a hatnote. Overcategorization per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:26, 30 January 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename categories in line with the hyphenation of other similar categories. The French Canadian category has the hyphen in the wrong place. Solar-Wind (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Currently a single entry category for the lead article. Recreation should be allowed if in the future we get more articles. At present none of the individual schools have articles and I'm not sure if they will. In the meantime, the main article has a full list. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2014 (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.
