Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 July 7
2010 July 9 >

8 July 2010

  • Category:Future elections in Australia – Endorse but allow relisting.
    Consensus is that the closing administrator correctly closed the discussion as it was held but that individual concerns about that particular category were not addressed sufficiently to correctly assess whether this particular should be deleted and renamed as well. As such relisting this category seperately at CFD will be the best way to allow the community to discuss this specific situation. – So Why 20:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Future elections in Australia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The category was renamed to Category:Scheduled elections in Australia but many of the elections are not "scheduled" - they can happen at almost any time. The old category was appropriate. Barrylb ( talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse- we can't write about an election until we know when it's going to be, ergo, the only elections Wikipedia can cover are scheduled ones. Reyk YO! 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. We can have articles on future elections that have not been scheduled without violating WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think it is warranted to wait until the Governor-General prorogues Parliament to put up a page on an Australian federal election. The media coverage of the election commences well before that, so there is more than enough verifiable material to put in an article. I think this CfD - being a batch nomination - didn't properly consider the peculiarities about each of the particular categories. So while the consensus was to re-name, the nature of that consensus warrants DRV reconsidering the merits of the re-naming.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. We certainly can write about elections that have not been given exact dates, and we do (across all countries) regularly. The term "scheduled" in the title is a factual inaccuracy since many of these elections have not been scheduled at all. For example, we know there is going to be a Next Australian federal election, and it has received extensive coverage across the media and in parliament, but it has not yet been scheduled. Frickeg ( talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Language is important here. The rename put Australian federal election, 2010 in the "Scheduled" category. It has not been scheduled. (In fact, it could happen in 2011, but that's another debate.) It is now in an inappropriate category. If this rename is not reversed, the only logical action is to entirely remove that article from the category. Future has a very different meaning from schedluled. Our Sun is exected to expand and consume the Earth one day in the future, but so far that event has not been scheduled. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Several of these elections are not scheduled - including the next Western Australian state election for which we don't even know the year at this stage! Orderinchaos 03:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I note as well that the problems with this change extend to some of the others as well. Laotian parliamentary election, 2011 for example is in Category:Scheduled elections in Asia when it has clearly, like the Australian ones above, not been scheduled. Same goes for New Zealand general election, 2011 in Category:Scheduled elections, and Fijian general election, 2014. In my view the entire CfD from 14 June should be reversed as it's been so ill thought out and poorly implemented. Orderinchaos 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The discussion behind the change is here. Frickeg ( talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Having read the discussion: Overturn close and relist for more discussion. Recommend splitting the proposal, as it was too broad. Consensus was not clear given the breadth of the renames. From this nomination, it is clear that not all aspects were sufficiently considered. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The admin closed this properly based upon the discussion. This is not CFD round 2. If you don't agree with the rename, renominate it to something of your liking. -- Kbdank71 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn sine it is very clear the name is better. There needs to be a way of revisiting decisions. For categories, there's really no other way than this; refusing to do it would violate IAR and NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    • DRV is to discuss the close, not the rename, and the close was sound. To revisit the rename, relist it at CFD. Discuss it and come up with a better answer. Use the right tool for the right job. -- Kbdank71 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Your argument is basically "get the court to review its own decision", which never happens anywhere else. For the lesser watched corners, DRV is often the first chance issues get to be publicly known and scrutinised. Orderinchaos 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
        • No, my argument is that that if you disagree with the rename, relist it. If the people who are voting here really believe that a better name would work, they will show up at CFD and say so. There is no point in overturning the decision (which will revert it to what clearly isn't the best fit (and you yourself don't like)), when everyone here can get together and (hey, here's a novel idea) come up with a better name! -- Kbdank71 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't have an opinion on this, I'm just the little old closing administrator. As Kbdank71 points out, I have no doubt in my mind that I closed the discussion reflecting consensus, and the most suitable option should this DRV result in overturn is to relist. My question is, should the overturn really just involve this sole category instead of all the ones nominated? — ξ xplicit 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I personally reckon the entire thing should be reverted, as I've found quite a few random cases across a range of categories where the same issues apply, and therefore the parent category has to go back anyway, and for consistency it would be stupid to rename the parent category and keep a speckled mix of subcategories. Orderinchaos 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but relist the whole CFD. I think that the closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion (in which I strongly opposed the renaming), but the concerns raised here reinforce my view that the consensus was perverse. A fresh CfD is the way to go. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as original nominator. The close was clearly sound, and reflected the consensus of all who voted. However, I have no objection to a relist, since the opinions of many here suggest that it would not have passed as is. I will say that using the word "Future" has been discredited on CfD in every category that has been brought up, so I hope that if it gets relisted, it is not relisted as a reversion to something people on CfD have not supported, but rather a new suggestion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Mind you, the one you link to makes this look like yet another CfD "let's reorganise the world" campaign - there's been a long history of non-transparent decision making in there which has had to be overturned by a consensus of editors who actually edit the encyclopaedia down the track. I'm not actually a big fan of the word "Future" myself, but in this particular case (elections) I can't honestly think of a better one - "proposed" only really applies to Fiji and certain African countries, "scheduled" only applies to countries and places where it is set in advance by law, and I am not sure of an alternative that encompasses all of "going to happen", "going to happen on a certain date" and "might happen but who knows". Orderinchaos 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Do we have to throw around statements of sinister intent? I didn't say anything bad about anyone here.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I didn't suggest there was sinister intent, more an overenthusiasm for the wrong cause and a complete failure to involve editors in decision-making processes. It wouldn't have taken much to drop a few notices on noticeboards / WikiProject talk pages. Orderinchaos 13:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn The problem with mass shotgun-style nominations like this is the scattershot effect of hitting innocent bystanders like this one. The argument presented here provides new evidence that was not presented at CfD that makes the result not only irrelevant, but wrong. Alansohn ( talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Relist this one. From the discussions it is clear that a few exceptions were not identified, with this being one. So it only makes sense to list the exceptions to get them to a name that is more appropriate. The recommendations to overturn are not based on the facts that resulted in the close, the object seems to be with the result of the discussion. If a blanket overturn is applied, we will not really achieve much and those who are complaining about this group nomination would only be compounding the confusion. So selectively relist only those changes that would work better with a different name. And then list those as single nominations so that the possibility of having different outcomes is clear. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This discussion shows the bureaucratic mess Wikipedia has become in some areas. I'm the person who triggered this discussion (along with Frickeg), because I found the article Australian federal election, 2010 in it. Clearly the wrong category for that article, because the election is not yet scheduled. I'm pretty new as an active editor, and I get very frustrated with responses of the form "Oh, we already decided that before you came along." What an arrogance! What a turnoff for new editors. It's virtually unanimous here that this category is the wrong one for the next Australian election. Whatever process led to the change was a bad process. If we cannot fix it simply now, there is something very wrong with Wikipedia. I don't pretend to understand all the rules of Wikipedia (Does anybody? This discussion suggests not), but I do know that next Australian election is NOT scheduled. If the category cannot be fixed nows, the obvious thing to do is to remove Australian federal election, 2010 from it, which I will do. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This is more of an appeal process. Like someone pointed out above, the quickest and simplest solution would have been to renominate that at CfD. Bring it here makes the process longer. I suppose that one could have both discussions active at the same time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I read "DRV" as more as a "review forum" than an "appeal process". What matters is what has been said, and how to fix the product. Where something is said, and what process is invoked, is less important than improving the product. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but allow renomination. The discussion was open for over 3 weeks and there's little doubt that the close reflects the consensus that was there. The more sensible thing to do would have been to just renominate the category for renaming. That way the debate that is being had above can be had in the proper forum. Complaint are made about bureaucracy, but it's the nominator who decided what forum to bring this up in, was it not? Why not just start a new CFD? (Had the closer been notified prior to the start of the DRV as is recommended, I wouldn't have been surprised if he would have just recommended that a new CFD be started. But that's speculative on my part.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The message at the top of the closing of the original deletion debate says "subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)". The category talk page didn't seem like it would get an audience and I there was no other suggestion what is 'an appropriate discussion page' so I went to deletion review. At deletion review the documentation lists four number points in a box. Point 1 says "resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator.." which I didn't bother with because there is nothing wrong with the administrator's decision. Point 2 says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly.." - makes me think perhaps this is not the right place. Point 3 says "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." makes me think this actually could be the right place. Point 4 "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead" does not seem relevant in this case. Then I looked through the rest of the documentation looking for any "see also's" or suggestion of other processes to follow in this particular case. In the absence of that it seem that this process is the best choice. Re-listing at CFD was not suggested in the documentation and never occurred to me because of the process issues mentioned by Orderinchaos above - "get the court to review its own decision". Barrylb ( talk) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fair enough—but I do think mentioning it to the closing administrator would be a wise thing to do before you went down any path. It often saves a lot of time and unneeded process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I !voted "overturn and relist" because the content of the debate plus new statements here tell me that the original name was better than the current name. I mean no criticism of the closer, although I read BHG's unanswered strong statement as justifying a no consensus close. Those saying endorse and relist I guess are saying that there is good reason to relist but that in the event of subsequent CfD no consensus, it stays as "Category:Scheduled elections in Australia". Whether objections to the close were first made here or on the closer's talk page are irrelevant. This is a useful conversation about a complicated question. It is looking like there is a consensus for relist, the closer (User:Explicit) might close this DRV as a relist at any time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Is someone trying to shut down debate for that reason? The issue is the appropriate site for the debate, not whether or not it should occur. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Is someone trying to shut down debates for that reason? See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Proposal_re:_requirement_to_consult_with_closing_admin_in_advance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Interesting; thanks for the link. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for listing it again at CfD was to allow a rename to happen without unnecessary delays, not to stop this discussion. I hinted about doing this above and no one objected so I followed WP:BOLD and opened the discussion. If an incorrect decision is made, the focus should be on fixing it and not reviewing the decision. My plan actually was to be bold again and early close the discussion, but that is not going to happen because there are many opinions on what the name should be. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and rename back to "Future elections...". This was probably not the right forum to challenge the outcome of the CfD, and I would probably endorse the closure itself. However, DGG is right: this is not a bureaucracy, we do not need to redo this discussion for the third time simply to abide by the technicalities of the CfD structure. This is precisely the kind of situation for which we have WP:IAR. The category should clearly be renamed back to the way it was, let's just get it over with.  -- Lear's Fool 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The Australian one, the consensus for the others hasn't been tested here.  -- Lear's Fool 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
So, how do we fix this quickly. Right now, Australian federal election, 2010, and others, are in the wrong category, due to some apparent bureaucratic disaster in the inner machinations of Wikipedia. I really don't like leaving things in articles that are just plain dumb. Do I just remove them from the category now? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not much point moving them now. I know the category is incorrect, but it's only for a few more days (we're "never wrong for long", after all), and when the thing is sorted a bot will send them all wherever it's decided that they go. Otherwise we'll have to perform both operations manually. Frickeg ( talk) 01:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_8&oldid=1078928265"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 July 7
2010 July 9 >

8 July 2010

  • Category:Future elections in Australia – Endorse but allow relisting.
    Consensus is that the closing administrator correctly closed the discussion as it was held but that individual concerns about that particular category were not addressed sufficiently to correctly assess whether this particular should be deleted and renamed as well. As such relisting this category seperately at CFD will be the best way to allow the community to discuss this specific situation. – So Why 20:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Future elections in Australia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The category was renamed to Category:Scheduled elections in Australia but many of the elections are not "scheduled" - they can happen at almost any time. The old category was appropriate. Barrylb ( talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse- we can't write about an election until we know when it's going to be, ergo, the only elections Wikipedia can cover are scheduled ones. Reyk YO! 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. We can have articles on future elections that have not been scheduled without violating WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think it is warranted to wait until the Governor-General prorogues Parliament to put up a page on an Australian federal election. The media coverage of the election commences well before that, so there is more than enough verifiable material to put in an article. I think this CfD - being a batch nomination - didn't properly consider the peculiarities about each of the particular categories. So while the consensus was to re-name, the nature of that consensus warrants DRV reconsidering the merits of the re-naming.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. We certainly can write about elections that have not been given exact dates, and we do (across all countries) regularly. The term "scheduled" in the title is a factual inaccuracy since many of these elections have not been scheduled at all. For example, we know there is going to be a Next Australian federal election, and it has received extensive coverage across the media and in parliament, but it has not yet been scheduled. Frickeg ( talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Language is important here. The rename put Australian federal election, 2010 in the "Scheduled" category. It has not been scheduled. (In fact, it could happen in 2011, but that's another debate.) It is now in an inappropriate category. If this rename is not reversed, the only logical action is to entirely remove that article from the category. Future has a very different meaning from schedluled. Our Sun is exected to expand and consume the Earth one day in the future, but so far that event has not been scheduled. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Several of these elections are not scheduled - including the next Western Australian state election for which we don't even know the year at this stage! Orderinchaos 03:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I note as well that the problems with this change extend to some of the others as well. Laotian parliamentary election, 2011 for example is in Category:Scheduled elections in Asia when it has clearly, like the Australian ones above, not been scheduled. Same goes for New Zealand general election, 2011 in Category:Scheduled elections, and Fijian general election, 2014. In my view the entire CfD from 14 June should be reversed as it's been so ill thought out and poorly implemented. Orderinchaos 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The discussion behind the change is here. Frickeg ( talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Having read the discussion: Overturn close and relist for more discussion. Recommend splitting the proposal, as it was too broad. Consensus was not clear given the breadth of the renames. From this nomination, it is clear that not all aspects were sufficiently considered. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The admin closed this properly based upon the discussion. This is not CFD round 2. If you don't agree with the rename, renominate it to something of your liking. -- Kbdank71 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn sine it is very clear the name is better. There needs to be a way of revisiting decisions. For categories, there's really no other way than this; refusing to do it would violate IAR and NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    • DRV is to discuss the close, not the rename, and the close was sound. To revisit the rename, relist it at CFD. Discuss it and come up with a better answer. Use the right tool for the right job. -- Kbdank71 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Your argument is basically "get the court to review its own decision", which never happens anywhere else. For the lesser watched corners, DRV is often the first chance issues get to be publicly known and scrutinised. Orderinchaos 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
        • No, my argument is that that if you disagree with the rename, relist it. If the people who are voting here really believe that a better name would work, they will show up at CFD and say so. There is no point in overturning the decision (which will revert it to what clearly isn't the best fit (and you yourself don't like)), when everyone here can get together and (hey, here's a novel idea) come up with a better name! -- Kbdank71 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't have an opinion on this, I'm just the little old closing administrator. As Kbdank71 points out, I have no doubt in my mind that I closed the discussion reflecting consensus, and the most suitable option should this DRV result in overturn is to relist. My question is, should the overturn really just involve this sole category instead of all the ones nominated? — ξ xplicit 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I personally reckon the entire thing should be reverted, as I've found quite a few random cases across a range of categories where the same issues apply, and therefore the parent category has to go back anyway, and for consistency it would be stupid to rename the parent category and keep a speckled mix of subcategories. Orderinchaos 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but relist the whole CFD. I think that the closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion (in which I strongly opposed the renaming), but the concerns raised here reinforce my view that the consensus was perverse. A fresh CfD is the way to go. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as original nominator. The close was clearly sound, and reflected the consensus of all who voted. However, I have no objection to a relist, since the opinions of many here suggest that it would not have passed as is. I will say that using the word "Future" has been discredited on CfD in every category that has been brought up, so I hope that if it gets relisted, it is not relisted as a reversion to something people on CfD have not supported, but rather a new suggestion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Mind you, the one you link to makes this look like yet another CfD "let's reorganise the world" campaign - there's been a long history of non-transparent decision making in there which has had to be overturned by a consensus of editors who actually edit the encyclopaedia down the track. I'm not actually a big fan of the word "Future" myself, but in this particular case (elections) I can't honestly think of a better one - "proposed" only really applies to Fiji and certain African countries, "scheduled" only applies to countries and places where it is set in advance by law, and I am not sure of an alternative that encompasses all of "going to happen", "going to happen on a certain date" and "might happen but who knows". Orderinchaos 20:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Do we have to throw around statements of sinister intent? I didn't say anything bad about anyone here.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I didn't suggest there was sinister intent, more an overenthusiasm for the wrong cause and a complete failure to involve editors in decision-making processes. It wouldn't have taken much to drop a few notices on noticeboards / WikiProject talk pages. Orderinchaos 13:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn The problem with mass shotgun-style nominations like this is the scattershot effect of hitting innocent bystanders like this one. The argument presented here provides new evidence that was not presented at CfD that makes the result not only irrelevant, but wrong. Alansohn ( talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Relist this one. From the discussions it is clear that a few exceptions were not identified, with this being one. So it only makes sense to list the exceptions to get them to a name that is more appropriate. The recommendations to overturn are not based on the facts that resulted in the close, the object seems to be with the result of the discussion. If a blanket overturn is applied, we will not really achieve much and those who are complaining about this group nomination would only be compounding the confusion. So selectively relist only those changes that would work better with a different name. And then list those as single nominations so that the possibility of having different outcomes is clear. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This discussion shows the bureaucratic mess Wikipedia has become in some areas. I'm the person who triggered this discussion (along with Frickeg), because I found the article Australian federal election, 2010 in it. Clearly the wrong category for that article, because the election is not yet scheduled. I'm pretty new as an active editor, and I get very frustrated with responses of the form "Oh, we already decided that before you came along." What an arrogance! What a turnoff for new editors. It's virtually unanimous here that this category is the wrong one for the next Australian election. Whatever process led to the change was a bad process. If we cannot fix it simply now, there is something very wrong with Wikipedia. I don't pretend to understand all the rules of Wikipedia (Does anybody? This discussion suggests not), but I do know that next Australian election is NOT scheduled. If the category cannot be fixed nows, the obvious thing to do is to remove Australian federal election, 2010 from it, which I will do. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This is more of an appeal process. Like someone pointed out above, the quickest and simplest solution would have been to renominate that at CfD. Bring it here makes the process longer. I suppose that one could have both discussions active at the same time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I read "DRV" as more as a "review forum" than an "appeal process". What matters is what has been said, and how to fix the product. Where something is said, and what process is invoked, is less important than improving the product. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but allow renomination. The discussion was open for over 3 weeks and there's little doubt that the close reflects the consensus that was there. The more sensible thing to do would have been to just renominate the category for renaming. That way the debate that is being had above can be had in the proper forum. Complaint are made about bureaucracy, but it's the nominator who decided what forum to bring this up in, was it not? Why not just start a new CFD? (Had the closer been notified prior to the start of the DRV as is recommended, I wouldn't have been surprised if he would have just recommended that a new CFD be started. But that's speculative on my part.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The message at the top of the closing of the original deletion debate says "subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review)". The category talk page didn't seem like it would get an audience and I there was no other suggestion what is 'an appropriate discussion page' so I went to deletion review. At deletion review the documentation lists four number points in a box. Point 1 says "resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator.." which I didn't bother with because there is nothing wrong with the administrator's decision. Point 2 says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly.." - makes me think perhaps this is not the right place. Point 3 says "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." makes me think this actually could be the right place. Point 4 "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead" does not seem relevant in this case. Then I looked through the rest of the documentation looking for any "see also's" or suggestion of other processes to follow in this particular case. In the absence of that it seem that this process is the best choice. Re-listing at CFD was not suggested in the documentation and never occurred to me because of the process issues mentioned by Orderinchaos above - "get the court to review its own decision". Barrylb ( talk) 00:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fair enough—but I do think mentioning it to the closing administrator would be a wise thing to do before you went down any path. It often saves a lot of time and unneeded process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I !voted "overturn and relist" because the content of the debate plus new statements here tell me that the original name was better than the current name. I mean no criticism of the closer, although I read BHG's unanswered strong statement as justifying a no consensus close. Those saying endorse and relist I guess are saying that there is good reason to relist but that in the event of subsequent CfD no consensus, it stays as "Category:Scheduled elections in Australia". Whether objections to the close were first made here or on the closer's talk page are irrelevant. This is a useful conversation about a complicated question. It is looking like there is a consensus for relist, the closer (User:Explicit) might close this DRV as a relist at any time. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Is someone trying to shut down debate for that reason? The issue is the appropriate site for the debate, not whether or not it should occur. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Is someone trying to shut down debates for that reason? See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Proposal_re:_requirement_to_consult_with_closing_admin_in_advance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Interesting; thanks for the link. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for listing it again at CfD was to allow a rename to happen without unnecessary delays, not to stop this discussion. I hinted about doing this above and no one objected so I followed WP:BOLD and opened the discussion. If an incorrect decision is made, the focus should be on fixing it and not reviewing the decision. My plan actually was to be bold again and early close the discussion, but that is not going to happen because there are many opinions on what the name should be. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and rename back to "Future elections...". This was probably not the right forum to challenge the outcome of the CfD, and I would probably endorse the closure itself. However, DGG is right: this is not a bureaucracy, we do not need to redo this discussion for the third time simply to abide by the technicalities of the CfD structure. This is precisely the kind of situation for which we have WP:IAR. The category should clearly be renamed back to the way it was, let's just get it over with.  -- Lear's Fool 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The Australian one, the consensus for the others hasn't been tested here.  -- Lear's Fool 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply
So, how do we fix this quickly. Right now, Australian federal election, 2010, and others, are in the wrong category, due to some apparent bureaucratic disaster in the inner machinations of Wikipedia. I really don't like leaving things in articles that are just plain dumb. Do I just remove them from the category now? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not much point moving them now. I know the category is incorrect, but it's only for a few more days (we're "never wrong for long", after all), and when the thing is sorted a bot will send them all wherever it's decided that they go. Otherwise we'll have to perform both operations manually. Frickeg ( talk) 01:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_8&oldid=1078928265"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE