Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 September 19
2015 September 21 >

20 September 2015

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It was used in " Material Girl" until I replaced it with the American artwork. I chatted with the administrator who deleted the image per FFD a couple years ago. At first deletion was the right decision, but discussions, such as Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song) and Talk:I'm Coming Out, convinced me to have second thoughts. WP:NFCC has been enforced to restrict amount of cover arts to normally just one, but majority said keep two images in FFD. I did vote "delete", but now I'm unsure whether it was the right vote. George Ho ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse I can't see "I've change my mind" as a DRV criteria. Regardless the two discussion you've listed are pretty poor with the majority of participants not concerning themselves with NFCC, as the original closer of the FFD discussion here said "Ultimately, the NFCC cannot be overridden by a local consensus.." which is exactly what you seem to be requesting. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What about ‎Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song)#Infobox image? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What about it? It's another discussion trying to decide a local consensus about an issue in that article, it isn't an FFD discussion about if the relevant fair use rationales are met. NFCC doesn't have a hard and fast "one image only" rule, and those discussions aren't really trying to determine if WP:NFCC is met or not, mostly they are assuming a valid rationale exists. This leads to two points (1) we don't fragment discussions on such issues everywhere, if it isn't determined by WP:FFD then it's no where near a definitive view, people don't trawl every article looking for such discussions to implement WP:NFCC (2) each situation is different, just because one article has two fair use images and WP:FFD agrees they are both valid claims for that article, does not mean every other similar article can then have two fair use images. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse own deletion. As I said in my closure, local consensus cannot override Foundation policy on non-free images. Other images not being deleted should be resolved by deleting the other improper images rather than restoring this one. Aside: this decision is over two years old. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Allow relisting - NFCC doesn't limit to one image, but to the minimum needed. For an album charting in both America and Europe, there's an argument to be made both are needed for identification. It's true it's old, but given the structural problems where keep decisions have a forum to be endlessly revisited, but delete decisions generally don't, DRV needs to serve/enable this, as old delete decisions are otherwise enforced but no venue exists to question them. Lastly, closures where the closing admin cannot maintain an uninvolved appearance need to be closed by someone who can be seen to be acting as a neutral third party. Wily D 12:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Anomalous local closes do not justify widespread exemptions from otherwise governing nonfree content policies. Our practice concerning books doesn't allow multiple cover images for books released in multiple countries, nor does our practice regarding movies all multiple DVD covers for internqtional releases. If anything, the individual outcomes cited by the OP should be overturned rather than applied more generally. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus Granted this is old and I was a part of the original discussion, but this close has sat well with me. Three editors for and three editors against the image all arguing the for and against the same points of NFCC should have been a no consensus close. As much as the closer claims their close is not a supervote, it is when is they take down one side's argument while not talking about the other. Jhead's very thorough opinion based on different points of NFCC and past discussions is simply wiped away by saying it is WP:OSE. I also do not like the close because it attributed something to me that I made no claim of while dismissing my argument because I never said the image was the subject of critical commentary. I stated what the current consensus is/was: "The current consensus for alternate images on album/single articles are that the alternate cover has to be significantly different from the original, widely distributed and/or replacing the original would pass the criteria for identification or an alternate image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary about the image would also be acceptable." I was arguing that this image passed the first part and not the second part. Aspects ( talk) 02:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think parts of the FFD closing statement were somewhat mistaken. WP:NFCC policy makes no stipulations about "critical commentary". It is the widely-accepted content guideline WP:NFC that gives advice about this and a well-argued consensus that the guidance is inappropriate in a particular case would be entirely acceptable. The AFD nomination was more firmly policy-based than the AFD close – it did not mention "critical commentary" and questioned how the reader's understanding might be affected by the image. It is only wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that cannot be overridden by any consensus and it is possible for the broader WP:NFCC policy statement to be legitimately challenged. However, in this AFD discussion the challenges were to the guidance rather than to the policy. Thincat ( talk) 09:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You mean wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? I saw an extra 'o'. George Ho ( talk) 10:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I did mean that and I've now corrected it, thank you. The blue colour of the link misled me. Thincat ( talk) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Uninformed closure when interested parties had not been informed that the category was up for deletion. The closing admin wrote: "Those in favour of deletion have the stronger guideline-based arguments here (a vague statement, to say the least), and added "...the closing of the previous discussion was not intended to be interpreted as meaning that we should take all of the articles that were previously categorised in Category:Welsh-speaking people and create subcategories by occupation. It was intended to reflect the consensus of that discussion, which was that the category should only contain subcategories for occupations in which speaking Welsh is integral to it, such as Category:Welsh-language singers or Category:Welsh-language poets. There are now quite a few subcategories of Category:Welsh-speaking people that are questionable under this standard. I apologise that the previous close did not make this crystal clear; I had thought that it would have been understood by the context of the discussion as a whole. I'm assuming here that the creation of the subcategories was an honest misinterpretation and not a back-alley attempt to get around the result of the discussion."

Apart from the inaccurate appraisal of the relative merits of the arguments, it is suggested in this statement that the creator of the new category was misinterpreting the outcome of the discussion on whether to containerize the category "Welsh-speaking people". Yet that proposal specifically excluded the possibility that articles previously included in that category would no longer be in any category that recognised the defining characteristic of being a Welsh speaker. Although the proposer suggested a small number of vocational categories that might be created, it was at no time implied that these would be the only categories "allowed". I have raised certain points with the closing admin to demonstrate that this is indeed a valid category by his own criteria. Time difference is at present making it difficult for us to get together to discuss it further.
Equally importantly, it appears that those contributors who were involved in creating and populating the category were not informed that it was up for deletion. I certainly was not. Although there may be no rule that specifically says we should be informed, it must be clear that those who opposed the deletion were hindered from participating in the discussion by this omission. Deb ( talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Self-endorse (as closer). The category was correctly tagged with Template:Cfd, which is the notification requirement for categories. "I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to pursue a review. (If you care about a category, place it on your watchlist—then you will be notified when it is tagged for discussion.) I think my close accurately reflects the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion. Those in favour of deletion were guideline-based and in harmony with the previous discussion's outcome. (If you want to know what those guidelines were that I referred to in the close, see substance of the discussion.) Those in favour of keeping generally were not.
This is related to the previous discussion, but the statement above that "that proposal specifically excluded the possibility that articles previously included in that category would no longer be in any category" is not correct. I cannot see that this suggestion was made in the discussion at all.
(As a side note, I get the feeling that those who oppose deletion of the category think that those who favour of deletion "just don't get it", and they have repeatedly been condescending in this regard. One participant in the discussion wrote to another user, "It may be difficult for you to understand this, but please try to do so...". User:Deb hardly attempted to discuss this with me on my talk page, opening her comments with the not-very-productive, "It doesn't appear that you understand the issues...".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist That the participants to a discussion were not representative is a reasonable ground for relisting. Personally, I think this sort of notification should be required, and not doing it is an outrageous unfair process favoring the personal views of the few people who follow this process. I have no personal view of the merits. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it can reasonably stand that a potentially unlimited group of people, whose identities cannot be readily established, should be required to be notified of deletion discussions. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    And, DGG, one doesn't have the follow the CFD process—all a user has to do is put the categories they care about on their watchlist, and they will be notified of any proposed rename or deletion! It's not that hard and it's a bit of a cop-out to try to shift the onus of "notification" to other users when every user has the tools under his own control. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist - effectively a supervote - whether language is important to sports or not is asserted, but not shown (and it probably is, given that pro-sports teams are largely rallying points for cultural identities). That the closer has come to this discussion and acted in a highly involved manner reiterates the need to have the discussion closed by an admin who can at least act like a neutral party. Wily D 12:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The reason I came here was because the nominator did not wait to discuss this with me first on my talk page, which is recommended. If you can point to evidence that I "acted in a highly involved manner" prior to my comments above, you might have a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Concur with WilyD and Good Olfactory. CfDs are centralized for a reason, and categories are watchlisted for a reason. The rationale DGG is applying could be used overturn all processes, from XfD to RM, in which anyone claims they feel they should have been personally notified but were not. WP simply does not work that way. Consensus is formed by whoever is around to form it, and it can change, so people need to quit climbing the Reichstag over the matter every time something doesn't go their way, or everyrone they wished showed up to a discussion didn't.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (closer). Since this nomination was begun, I've been able to respond to the nominator's initial inquiry on my talk page. If you would like to read more about my rationale for closing, you can read it here. I'm hesitant to post these thoughts here as well, since a user above has already suggested that I'm not acting uninvolved enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: The close adequately assesses the arguments presented in the particular case in question, and perhaps more importantly the overall picture, including the previous CfD which supporters of this trivial-intersection category sorely misinterpreted. This isn't even about this particular category anyway, it's about WP:TRIVIALCAT generally. We do no categorize people by skills they possess, though we do categorize occupations by skills they intrinsically involve. Category:Welsh-language poets is a valid category. Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople was not. Playing football and racing cars has no relationship to what language someone uses. It's exactly like Category:Trombone-playing physicists. I find it very telling that these language overcategorization efforts appear to be limited entirely to Celtic language categories. This is entirely a matter of Celtic language advocacy/activism. I say that as a 25-year Celtic language activist, BTW. I just know when to put my pet issues aside, and not push them inappropriately on the encyclopedia.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the close was entirely proper; the language skills of sportspeople is unnecessary to their notability or their job; if we have such a tree, we'll have no end of Category:Fooish-speaking jobholders with every combination of each. We categorize by language spoken only when integral to the job (writers, poets, tv announcers, singers); not sportspeople, fast-food workers, beekeepers, or astrologers. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Make more noise at the developers to implement Wikipedia:Category intersection. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It would, I hope, enable cross-referencing Category:Welsh-speaking people (and subcategories) with Category:Sportspeople (and subcategories), for example. This would remove the perceived need to create random category intersections (aka WP:TRIVIALCAT), such as the one being discussed here. I like to thing that dynamic category intersections would both make categories very much more useful, and reduce the excessive creation of categories based upon individuals' interests. Random intersection are frequently wanted for passing custom purposes, but it is obvious that pages should not be bottom-tagged with categories for every perceivable intersection.
Wikipedia:Category intersection appears, to my surprise, to not assume that dynamic category intersection will be able to search not just all members, but all members of subcategories recursively. I think this is necessary.
The absence of this feature of Wikipedia:Category intersection creates this perpetual problem of good faith editors wanting to improve the category system coming into conflict with serious maintainers of the category system who know that the creations of category newcomers are unworkable if completed. This discussion is a mere example of the perpetual problem. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I understand the potential usefulness, though I think it wouldn't have been helpful in this case. Category:Welsh-speaking people had no individual articles in it after the previous discussion, so unless the sportsperson was also categorized as a Welsh-language writer or a Welsh-language singer (or some other occupation for which being Welsh-speaking is central), they would not have been categorized in the Category:Welsh-speaking people at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If it is desirable to be able to find all Welsh sportspeople, then it would become useful for editors to ensure that all Welsh are in some Welsh subcategory, and all sportspeople would be in some sports category, so if Wikipedia:Category intersection were a feature, the situation would be different. I expect that there would be more very broad categories, probably more tolerance of hidden categorisation by non-defining attributes. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with you, depending on how it's implemented. I might say these two variables are unrelated, but you might say they matter to you so you would search by that combination without cluttering other readers navigation. At least I hope that's where it takes us. RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
We already can find all Welsh sportspeople.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That category tree is excessive, far too many lowly populated subcategories, probably hopelessly under-maintained. Are you really confident that there are no pages belonging in that category tree but uncategorised? The ability to search by category intersections, and similar operations, should remove the desire for so many thin categories. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the closing reflected policy and the nature of the discussion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The argument here seems to be that, if different editors participated, the outcome would be different. That's true enough, but this forum is really for mishandling by closing admins or policy violations. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Procedure For WikiProject Notices If any editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales (or any WikiProject) would have tagged the talk page of the category and the nomination would have automatically appeared in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Article alerts. But, since no on in that or any other WikiProject tagged the category talk page, no notice went to a WikiProject. That's how it works; it's not on the nominator or closing admin's shoulders to do that. While most articles have WikiProjects on their talk pages, many categories do not, and it's worth your going through category trees you care about. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. As the nominator of the original discussion (not this discussion under DRV) I had noted that many biographies that weren't in subcategory already were not verifiable in terms of their Welsh-speaking. On the other hand, biographies in subcategories like Welsh-speaking actors and Welsh-language activists are obviously allowed as Welsh-speaking, because for them it is verifiable. Deleting Welsh-speaking sportspeople is a consequence of this same reasoning: since sportspeople don't speak Welsh as an obvious part of their sport occupation, it is a non-verifiable characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Your comment reads as if it it not possible to verify claims that any particular sportsmen can speak Welsh. Is that really your opinion? In what way is it not verifiable that George North can speak Welsh? [1] Recently I have become concerned that rather too many CFD discussions have lost contact with reality. Thincat ( talk) 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I mean, it's not in general, in the sense that a language skill is a defining characteristic for sportspeople. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse in this case, but not more widely -- In my CFD comments, I perhaps did not think enough about whether this was a trivial intersection: is the ability to speak Welsh relevant to their sporting prowess? In field and track sports (which are essentially individual) it is probably irrelevant. However in team sports, the players will speak to each other during play. If the team language was Welsh, they might have an advantage in that their opponents would be unable to understand what was said. However, that may only be a theoretical issue, as there are (I believe) few professional sports teams in the areas of Wales where the language is most dominant. I think that in practice almost every Welsh-speaking Welshman is bi-lingual. In some parts of Wales, the language is in practice extinct, but in others it is the usual language for local people. Welsh-speakers are a subset of Welsh people; certainly so, if we are talking about those who regularly speak in practice. Any Welsh-speaking category should be for those who regularly do speak it, not for those who in theory have the ability. I write this as some one who lives in the English Midlands, but periodically visits Wales: I have been addressed in Welsh at the National Library of Wales, but as soon as I utter an English word, they continue in English; the same applies in shops, where the shopkeeper may be chatting in Welsh, but as soon as I ask for something in English, the shopkeeper will switch to English. Clearly presenters on the Welsh-language TV channel S4C need to speak Welsh. Those who perform or write in Welsh clearly need a category. However, being qualified to represent Wales at an international level in sport does not depend on linguistic ability. I suspect that there will be a follow-up nom to this one, and I would discourage trying to apply the conclusion more widely: the appropriate course might be to purge a singers category of singers who could speak Welsh, but always performed in English. Finally, I recall a description of a planning inquiry, where Welsh participants insisted on speaking Welsh, so that a translator had to be employed. The Inspector was English. The question was asked why a Welsh-speaker was not the inspector; the answer was that there were such inspectors but they refused to take cases such as that one. This is a sensitive issue: there are implications in Nationalist politics. This is an area where I would suggest that those without local knowledge should hesitate to vote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I certainly agree that we would not want to see some move to delete categories like Category:Welsh-language singers (and that they should be purged of people who do not actually use the language as it intersects with their occupational category; lots of famous English writers also know Spanish or whatever, but we would not categorize them as Spanish-language writers). However, I don't see anyone proposing such a deletion of the actual relevant categories, and everyone seems to be distinguishing between them and this one, so I wouldn't worry about it. As for the "If the team language was Welsh ..." point: There's still nothing "intrinsically Welsh" about being on a sports team that happens to communicate in Welsh. They don't do it somehow differently from teams who communicate in German or Japanese; the language in incidental. They have to communicate in some language. It's rather like categorizing films by the brand of camera they were shot with, or books by what layout system was used to set them up for publication. If there were a constructed language, analogous to "Klingon Battle Speech", specifically for sports teams, that enabled faster and clearer exchange of team-sport-related collaborative communication, and it were shown to have a demonstrably positive effect on the win-ratio of teams using it, then maybe we'd need a category for teams using that. And it would be for teams, not for individuals.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 24 September 2015 (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/2015_September_20&oldid=1039525781"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 September 19
2015 September 21 >

20 September 2015

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It was used in " Material Girl" until I replaced it with the American artwork. I chatted with the administrator who deleted the image per FFD a couple years ago. At first deletion was the right decision, but discussions, such as Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song) and Talk:I'm Coming Out, convinced me to have second thoughts. WP:NFCC has been enforced to restrict amount of cover arts to normally just one, but majority said keep two images in FFD. I did vote "delete", but now I'm unsure whether it was the right vote. George Ho ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse I can't see "I've change my mind" as a DRV criteria. Regardless the two discussion you've listed are pretty poor with the majority of participants not concerning themselves with NFCC, as the original closer of the FFD discussion here said "Ultimately, the NFCC cannot be overridden by a local consensus.." which is exactly what you seem to be requesting. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What about ‎Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song)#Infobox image? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What about it? It's another discussion trying to decide a local consensus about an issue in that article, it isn't an FFD discussion about if the relevant fair use rationales are met. NFCC doesn't have a hard and fast "one image only" rule, and those discussions aren't really trying to determine if WP:NFCC is met or not, mostly they are assuming a valid rationale exists. This leads to two points (1) we don't fragment discussions on such issues everywhere, if it isn't determined by WP:FFD then it's no where near a definitive view, people don't trawl every article looking for such discussions to implement WP:NFCC (2) each situation is different, just because one article has two fair use images and WP:FFD agrees they are both valid claims for that article, does not mean every other similar article can then have two fair use images. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse own deletion. As I said in my closure, local consensus cannot override Foundation policy on non-free images. Other images not being deleted should be resolved by deleting the other improper images rather than restoring this one. Aside: this decision is over two years old. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Allow relisting - NFCC doesn't limit to one image, but to the minimum needed. For an album charting in both America and Europe, there's an argument to be made both are needed for identification. It's true it's old, but given the structural problems where keep decisions have a forum to be endlessly revisited, but delete decisions generally don't, DRV needs to serve/enable this, as old delete decisions are otherwise enforced but no venue exists to question them. Lastly, closures where the closing admin cannot maintain an uninvolved appearance need to be closed by someone who can be seen to be acting as a neutral third party. Wily D 12:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Anomalous local closes do not justify widespread exemptions from otherwise governing nonfree content policies. Our practice concerning books doesn't allow multiple cover images for books released in multiple countries, nor does our practice regarding movies all multiple DVD covers for internqtional releases. If anything, the individual outcomes cited by the OP should be overturned rather than applied more generally. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus Granted this is old and I was a part of the original discussion, but this close has sat well with me. Three editors for and three editors against the image all arguing the for and against the same points of NFCC should have been a no consensus close. As much as the closer claims their close is not a supervote, it is when is they take down one side's argument while not talking about the other. Jhead's very thorough opinion based on different points of NFCC and past discussions is simply wiped away by saying it is WP:OSE. I also do not like the close because it attributed something to me that I made no claim of while dismissing my argument because I never said the image was the subject of critical commentary. I stated what the current consensus is/was: "The current consensus for alternate images on album/single articles are that the alternate cover has to be significantly different from the original, widely distributed and/or replacing the original would pass the criteria for identification or an alternate image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary about the image would also be acceptable." I was arguing that this image passed the first part and not the second part. Aspects ( talk) 02:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think parts of the FFD closing statement were somewhat mistaken. WP:NFCC policy makes no stipulations about "critical commentary". It is the widely-accepted content guideline WP:NFC that gives advice about this and a well-argued consensus that the guidance is inappropriate in a particular case would be entirely acceptable. The AFD nomination was more firmly policy-based than the AFD close – it did not mention "critical commentary" and questioned how the reader's understanding might be affected by the image. It is only wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that cannot be overridden by any consensus and it is possible for the broader WP:NFCC policy statement to be legitimately challenged. However, in this AFD discussion the challenges were to the guidance rather than to the policy. Thincat ( talk) 09:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You mean wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? I saw an extra 'o'. George Ho ( talk) 10:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I did mean that and I've now corrected it, thank you. The blue colour of the link misled me. Thincat ( talk) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Uninformed closure when interested parties had not been informed that the category was up for deletion. The closing admin wrote: "Those in favour of deletion have the stronger guideline-based arguments here (a vague statement, to say the least), and added "...the closing of the previous discussion was not intended to be interpreted as meaning that we should take all of the articles that were previously categorised in Category:Welsh-speaking people and create subcategories by occupation. It was intended to reflect the consensus of that discussion, which was that the category should only contain subcategories for occupations in which speaking Welsh is integral to it, such as Category:Welsh-language singers or Category:Welsh-language poets. There are now quite a few subcategories of Category:Welsh-speaking people that are questionable under this standard. I apologise that the previous close did not make this crystal clear; I had thought that it would have been understood by the context of the discussion as a whole. I'm assuming here that the creation of the subcategories was an honest misinterpretation and not a back-alley attempt to get around the result of the discussion."

Apart from the inaccurate appraisal of the relative merits of the arguments, it is suggested in this statement that the creator of the new category was misinterpreting the outcome of the discussion on whether to containerize the category "Welsh-speaking people". Yet that proposal specifically excluded the possibility that articles previously included in that category would no longer be in any category that recognised the defining characteristic of being a Welsh speaker. Although the proposer suggested a small number of vocational categories that might be created, it was at no time implied that these would be the only categories "allowed". I have raised certain points with the closing admin to demonstrate that this is indeed a valid category by his own criteria. Time difference is at present making it difficult for us to get together to discuss it further.
Equally importantly, it appears that those contributors who were involved in creating and populating the category were not informed that it was up for deletion. I certainly was not. Although there may be no rule that specifically says we should be informed, it must be clear that those who opposed the deletion were hindered from participating in the discussion by this omission. Deb ( talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Self-endorse (as closer). The category was correctly tagged with Template:Cfd, which is the notification requirement for categories. "I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to pursue a review. (If you care about a category, place it on your watchlist—then you will be notified when it is tagged for discussion.) I think my close accurately reflects the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion. Those in favour of deletion were guideline-based and in harmony with the previous discussion's outcome. (If you want to know what those guidelines were that I referred to in the close, see substance of the discussion.) Those in favour of keeping generally were not.
This is related to the previous discussion, but the statement above that "that proposal specifically excluded the possibility that articles previously included in that category would no longer be in any category" is not correct. I cannot see that this suggestion was made in the discussion at all.
(As a side note, I get the feeling that those who oppose deletion of the category think that those who favour of deletion "just don't get it", and they have repeatedly been condescending in this regard. One participant in the discussion wrote to another user, "It may be difficult for you to understand this, but please try to do so...". User:Deb hardly attempted to discuss this with me on my talk page, opening her comments with the not-very-productive, "It doesn't appear that you understand the issues...".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist That the participants to a discussion were not representative is a reasonable ground for relisting. Personally, I think this sort of notification should be required, and not doing it is an outrageous unfair process favoring the personal views of the few people who follow this process. I have no personal view of the merits. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it can reasonably stand that a potentially unlimited group of people, whose identities cannot be readily established, should be required to be notified of deletion discussions. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    And, DGG, one doesn't have the follow the CFD process—all a user has to do is put the categories they care about on their watchlist, and they will be notified of any proposed rename or deletion! It's not that hard and it's a bit of a cop-out to try to shift the onus of "notification" to other users when every user has the tools under his own control. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Relist - effectively a supervote - whether language is important to sports or not is asserted, but not shown (and it probably is, given that pro-sports teams are largely rallying points for cultural identities). That the closer has come to this discussion and acted in a highly involved manner reiterates the need to have the discussion closed by an admin who can at least act like a neutral party. Wily D 12:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The reason I came here was because the nominator did not wait to discuss this with me first on my talk page, which is recommended. If you can point to evidence that I "acted in a highly involved manner" prior to my comments above, you might have a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Concur with WilyD and Good Olfactory. CfDs are centralized for a reason, and categories are watchlisted for a reason. The rationale DGG is applying could be used overturn all processes, from XfD to RM, in which anyone claims they feel they should have been personally notified but were not. WP simply does not work that way. Consensus is formed by whoever is around to form it, and it can change, so people need to quit climbing the Reichstag over the matter every time something doesn't go their way, or everyrone they wished showed up to a discussion didn't.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (closer). Since this nomination was begun, I've been able to respond to the nominator's initial inquiry on my talk page. If you would like to read more about my rationale for closing, you can read it here. I'm hesitant to post these thoughts here as well, since a user above has already suggested that I'm not acting uninvolved enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: The close adequately assesses the arguments presented in the particular case in question, and perhaps more importantly the overall picture, including the previous CfD which supporters of this trivial-intersection category sorely misinterpreted. This isn't even about this particular category anyway, it's about WP:TRIVIALCAT generally. We do no categorize people by skills they possess, though we do categorize occupations by skills they intrinsically involve. Category:Welsh-language poets is a valid category. Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople was not. Playing football and racing cars has no relationship to what language someone uses. It's exactly like Category:Trombone-playing physicists. I find it very telling that these language overcategorization efforts appear to be limited entirely to Celtic language categories. This is entirely a matter of Celtic language advocacy/activism. I say that as a 25-year Celtic language activist, BTW. I just know when to put my pet issues aside, and not push them inappropriately on the encyclopedia.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the close was entirely proper; the language skills of sportspeople is unnecessary to their notability or their job; if we have such a tree, we'll have no end of Category:Fooish-speaking jobholders with every combination of each. We categorize by language spoken only when integral to the job (writers, poets, tv announcers, singers); not sportspeople, fast-food workers, beekeepers, or astrologers. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Make more noise at the developers to implement Wikipedia:Category intersection. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It would, I hope, enable cross-referencing Category:Welsh-speaking people (and subcategories) with Category:Sportspeople (and subcategories), for example. This would remove the perceived need to create random category intersections (aka WP:TRIVIALCAT), such as the one being discussed here. I like to thing that dynamic category intersections would both make categories very much more useful, and reduce the excessive creation of categories based upon individuals' interests. Random intersection are frequently wanted for passing custom purposes, but it is obvious that pages should not be bottom-tagged with categories for every perceivable intersection.
Wikipedia:Category intersection appears, to my surprise, to not assume that dynamic category intersection will be able to search not just all members, but all members of subcategories recursively. I think this is necessary.
The absence of this feature of Wikipedia:Category intersection creates this perpetual problem of good faith editors wanting to improve the category system coming into conflict with serious maintainers of the category system who know that the creations of category newcomers are unworkable if completed. This discussion is a mere example of the perpetual problem. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I understand the potential usefulness, though I think it wouldn't have been helpful in this case. Category:Welsh-speaking people had no individual articles in it after the previous discussion, so unless the sportsperson was also categorized as a Welsh-language writer or a Welsh-language singer (or some other occupation for which being Welsh-speaking is central), they would not have been categorized in the Category:Welsh-speaking people at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If it is desirable to be able to find all Welsh sportspeople, then it would become useful for editors to ensure that all Welsh are in some Welsh subcategory, and all sportspeople would be in some sports category, so if Wikipedia:Category intersection were a feature, the situation would be different. I expect that there would be more very broad categories, probably more tolerance of hidden categorisation by non-defining attributes. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree with you, depending on how it's implemented. I might say these two variables are unrelated, but you might say they matter to you so you would search by that combination without cluttering other readers navigation. At least I hope that's where it takes us. RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
We already can find all Welsh sportspeople.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That category tree is excessive, far too many lowly populated subcategories, probably hopelessly under-maintained. Are you really confident that there are no pages belonging in that category tree but uncategorised? The ability to search by category intersections, and similar operations, should remove the desire for so many thin categories. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the closing reflected policy and the nature of the discussion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The argument here seems to be that, if different editors participated, the outcome would be different. That's true enough, but this forum is really for mishandling by closing admins or policy violations. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Procedure For WikiProject Notices If any editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales (or any WikiProject) would have tagged the talk page of the category and the nomination would have automatically appeared in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Article alerts. But, since no on in that or any other WikiProject tagged the category talk page, no notice went to a WikiProject. That's how it works; it's not on the nominator or closing admin's shoulders to do that. While most articles have WikiProjects on their talk pages, many categories do not, and it's worth your going through category trees you care about. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. As the nominator of the original discussion (not this discussion under DRV) I had noted that many biographies that weren't in subcategory already were not verifiable in terms of their Welsh-speaking. On the other hand, biographies in subcategories like Welsh-speaking actors and Welsh-language activists are obviously allowed as Welsh-speaking, because for them it is verifiable. Deleting Welsh-speaking sportspeople is a consequence of this same reasoning: since sportspeople don't speak Welsh as an obvious part of their sport occupation, it is a non-verifiable characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Your comment reads as if it it not possible to verify claims that any particular sportsmen can speak Welsh. Is that really your opinion? In what way is it not verifiable that George North can speak Welsh? [1] Recently I have become concerned that rather too many CFD discussions have lost contact with reality. Thincat ( talk) 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I mean, it's not in general, in the sense that a language skill is a defining characteristic for sportspeople. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse in this case, but not more widely -- In my CFD comments, I perhaps did not think enough about whether this was a trivial intersection: is the ability to speak Welsh relevant to their sporting prowess? In field and track sports (which are essentially individual) it is probably irrelevant. However in team sports, the players will speak to each other during play. If the team language was Welsh, they might have an advantage in that their opponents would be unable to understand what was said. However, that may only be a theoretical issue, as there are (I believe) few professional sports teams in the areas of Wales where the language is most dominant. I think that in practice almost every Welsh-speaking Welshman is bi-lingual. In some parts of Wales, the language is in practice extinct, but in others it is the usual language for local people. Welsh-speakers are a subset of Welsh people; certainly so, if we are talking about those who regularly speak in practice. Any Welsh-speaking category should be for those who regularly do speak it, not for those who in theory have the ability. I write this as some one who lives in the English Midlands, but periodically visits Wales: I have been addressed in Welsh at the National Library of Wales, but as soon as I utter an English word, they continue in English; the same applies in shops, where the shopkeeper may be chatting in Welsh, but as soon as I ask for something in English, the shopkeeper will switch to English. Clearly presenters on the Welsh-language TV channel S4C need to speak Welsh. Those who perform or write in Welsh clearly need a category. However, being qualified to represent Wales at an international level in sport does not depend on linguistic ability. I suspect that there will be a follow-up nom to this one, and I would discourage trying to apply the conclusion more widely: the appropriate course might be to purge a singers category of singers who could speak Welsh, but always performed in English. Finally, I recall a description of a planning inquiry, where Welsh participants insisted on speaking Welsh, so that a translator had to be employed. The Inspector was English. The question was asked why a Welsh-speaker was not the inspector; the answer was that there were such inspectors but they refused to take cases such as that one. This is a sensitive issue: there are implications in Nationalist politics. This is an area where I would suggest that those without local knowledge should hesitate to vote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I certainly agree that we would not want to see some move to delete categories like Category:Welsh-language singers (and that they should be purged of people who do not actually use the language as it intersects with their occupational category; lots of famous English writers also know Spanish or whatever, but we would not categorize them as Spanish-language writers). However, I don't see anyone proposing such a deletion of the actual relevant categories, and everyone seems to be distinguishing between them and this one, so I wouldn't worry about it. As for the "If the team language was Welsh ..." point: There's still nothing "intrinsically Welsh" about being on a sports team that happens to communicate in Welsh. They don't do it somehow differently from teams who communicate in German or Japanese; the language in incidental. They have to communicate in some language. It's rather like categorizing films by the brand of camera they were shot with, or books by what layout system was used to set them up for publication. If there were a constructed language, analogous to "Klingon Battle Speech", specifically for sports teams, that enabled faster and clearer exchange of team-sport-related collaborative communication, and it were shown to have a demonstrably positive effect on the win-ratio of teams using it, then maybe we'd need a category for teams using that. And it would be for teams, not for individuals.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 24 September 2015 (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/2015_September_20&oldid=1039525781"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE