Archives
c. July – December 2004 c. December 2004 – May 2005 c. May – September 2005 c. October – December 2005 January – 4 April 2006 April – June 2006 June – August 2006 August 2006 – January 2007 2007 2008

Shortcut: WT:CFD

Proposal for multiiple nominations

Is there any support for changing the way large multiple rename nominations are handled? I believe that in the past we only required the nomination of the top level and if it passed all sub cats where then also changed. Now, if you want to make the suggestion, you need to nominate everything.

Would it be possible to nominate only the top level category for a full CfD and if it passes then speedy the sub categories. This allows time for a full discussion and then notice for all of the sub categories so that if there is an objection to one, it can be addressed at that time. This would make editors more willing to do the work on some of the larger category structures.

If there is no support for this, then could we use a bot to do the mass adds?

I will also note that for closing admins, having to deal with a large nomination that failed is a royal pain that takes a lot of time. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Won't this cause problems for those who watch only certain categories that are lower than top-level? For instance, an editor might only care about the relevant category in the tree for a particular country or city. They might oppose the overall change, but they won't know about the proposal until it's essentially too late, because the top-level proposal has passed and they only find out about it when the category that they watch is nominated for a speedy change based on the original decision at the top level. I can imagine this causing some degree of upset, and it seems to take away from the standard notification requirements, which currently are quite low anyways (i.e., all you have to do is tag an affected category). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What to do with a complaint?

Recently, I nominated a category for deletion, notified the creator, and after the appropriate time it was deleted. There wasn't much discussion. Now the creator (a young person) is complaining to me about the category's deletion. He was notified of the CfD, but he didn't participate in it (perhaps because he wasn't on-Wikipedia very much when the discussion was open). This category isn't a candidate for deletion review (the deletion was perfectly orderly), but the creator claims that he's got media sources using the term. What's the protocol for re-opening discussion in a case like this? Is the creator just SOL, or is there any venue in which he can challenge the deletion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge UCFD

• WP:UCFD

These two processes were split a few years back. The main concerns were that having user categries on the /Working page was (quote) "breaking bots" (endquote). (It should be noted that this was following the many rather lengthy - though obviously necessary - noms for conventions that User:Mike Selinker was doing at the time.)

As there is now a separate working page for user categories (which happens to be a subpage of CFD, not UCFD), this shouldn't be an issue, as long as there are clear instructions, similar to the instructions for manual/nobots listings.

On the converse, there have been innumerable complaints about the "seeming" number (or lack thereof) of commenters at UCFD, and whether this constitutes "consensus". While this is a strawman argument (which is also fairly easily disproven), and also that the "appearance" or belief of such is nearly always the comment of the IWANTMINE, the repeated "appearance" of such may be enough to question whether re-integration might be worthwhile even for "appearance"/superficial reasons.

In addition, the page/process has been rather slow of late. On one hand, this is likely due to the typically unlauded work of those who watch recent changes, and other special pages, who are active on this page and others, and everyone else who has helped work towards a consistancy in naming conventions.

After 2 years of which we now have 2 related guidelines: WP:UC (originally split from WP:UBX) and WP:OC/U.

There's also the Topical index which has helped establish a bit of precedent, and has also helped reduce a bit of WP:BITE for newbies. (Among other things, by helping to clarify that their category isn't being arbitrarily targeted by the unfeeling hordes.)

Even should the two be merged, the index could continue to be maintained.

And finally (the last straw for me), there have been several noms listed here at CFD (several quite recently), despite the various templated disclaimers. The last of which is rather lengthy and has had no one actually question the location/venue.

I think it's time these were re-integrated, for ease, simplicity, and even "appearance".

Anyway, that's a bit of the history, and the rationale.

What does everyone else think? - jc37 05:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Update) - Separate logs sound interesting, though I'll note that there are quite a few noms at CFD before UCFD, so we'll still need to note that.

Miscellaneous categories for discussion (MCFD), also sounds interesting. Though I might suggest creating it as a new process, and then after that suggesting to merge UCFD there.

Due to the above (MCFD), and Black Falcon's comments concerning housekeeping (which I obviously agree with, since I said something similar at WT:UCFD), perhaps this should be postponed for a bit then? - jc37 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was actually thinking maybe we should expand/change uCfD to handle all non article content categories. Just to throw it out there. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, though. As long as there is an easy way for people to filter out user category discussions (and/or non-content cat discussions, if people like my suggestion), then I would probably be happy. I'm interested in seeing how the setup might look. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me, although I dispute the idea that the notion that UCFD sometimes has small participants is a strawman and easily disproved. I think that view itself is easily disproved. Merging would be a good step in doing all we can to ensure UCFD isn't a forum with limited input. Hiding T 11:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Just showing I'm paying attention; I have no objection to Ned's idea of separate section and Black Falcon's grasp of the mechanics, timescale and solutions to such. Hiding T 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• As a CFD closer, I have no problem with the merge. --Kbdank71 12:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• No objection here. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I also support this proposal. The main drawback is that this will complicate the process of updating the topical index: under the current system, one can find all UCFD discussions in the monthly archives; however, if UCFD is merged into CFD, one will need to search through CFD daily logs to identify user category discussions. This does not require much effort on a day-to-day basis, but it will be more time-consuming to play "catch-up" should the archive ever fall behind substantially. Of course, none of this applies if non-content category discussions are given a separate section in the daily logs, as Ned has suggested.
  Also, I think we ought to consider postponing any merge until some of the currently-planned 'housekeeping' (e.g. renaming the programming language categories to fix capitalisation or get rid of the Babel format) is performed. After all, it wouldn't do to perform the merge only to encounter the same complaints that necessitated the creation of UCFD in the first place. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• User categories and regular categories have very different guidelines that govern them so I think they should stay in separate places; it is much easier to say "on this page we use guideline X while on this page we use guideline Y". Although I think making 'user categories for discussion' into 'Miscellaneous categories for discussion' would not be such a bad idea. - Icewedge (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Works for me I always did wonder why they were separate to begin with. Whispering 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Contested speedies

I'd like to add the following in the speedy nomination section.

Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.

Currently it is unclear what to do with these contested requests. Anyone can delete the request since nothing really says this action is prohibited. This change also makes it clear that admins do not have an obligation to list the request for a full CfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me on both counts. Support. - jc37 01:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support as good idea to clarity confusion that usually exists about these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two notification templates

Why do we have both {{cfd-article}} and {{cfdnotice}}? __meco (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)