< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
Skomorokh, barbarian 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)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)
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)
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?”
“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 is a category which is unnecessarily factional and divisive.”
“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.”
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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)
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.-- UltraMagnus speak 10:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
Skomorokh, barbarian 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)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)
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)
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?”
“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 is a category which is unnecessarily factional and divisive.”
“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.”
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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)
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.-- UltraMagnus speak 10:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)