Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 February 5
2021 February 7 >

6 February 2021

  • Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence – category rename closure endorsed. There is some acknowledgement that there may have been some information missed in the discussion, but the overall response is substantially against reopening it. The assertion that the WikiProject was not notified is disputed, and most overall opinions on the article seem to suggest that the closure would not change even with the new information. ~ mazca talk 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Did not notify WikiProject Venezuela, and if they had someone would have told them "heroine" is an actual title - these women were given the honor "heroine"/heroína - not a neutrality concern, i.e. see at the articles in the category like Ana María Campos. Kingsif ( talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Another notice appeared right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Article alerts. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
XfD templates being automatically added to a procedural page is not notifying a WikiProject; at least, not suitably. A courtesy message at the talk page is expected. WP Venezuela even has a deletion discussion page that this was not added to. Kingsif ( talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That is not our documented process.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Kingsif: Would you might putting a strikethrough the part of this nomination that said the WikiProject was not notified, since your concern is how they were notified not whether they were notified. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
No. I wasn't so much saying there was a procedural deficiency, but that if anyone in the original discussion had thought to ask someone who might have subject knowledge (i.e. at the WikiProject, and would have endeavored to make sure the message was received) then the mistaken basis for renaming wouldn't have been made. I'm not arguing for or against rename or deletion, nor that the original decision be discarded for not being filed properly, but that all the !votes were made on an incorrect assumption and nobody bothered to seek the truth. If your proposal for rename/deletion is coming from a name issue, you should make sure to find out if there's actually an issue at all first. That's the complaint about not actually trying to communicate with the WikiProject. Kingsif ( talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (as participant) for four reasons: 1) There was no procedural deficiency in the nomination; the multiple WikiProject notices were just overlooked. 2) The claim that there was not a neutrality violation because there is a non-defining award called "heroine" just moves the issue from WP:NPOV to WP:OCAWARD. 3) The !votes here were not close. 4) The reason they were not close is because Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence is a clearer name more likely to aid navigaiton. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Are you claiming that this award isn't a defining characteristic of most of the people in the category? It seems likely it would be. And the new name is really an utterly different thing. Hobit ( talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It appears that the appellant is saying that "heroine" is a specific honor that is conferred, often posthumously, on women who were freedom fighters in the Venezuelan Revolution, comparable to a knighthood or a medal. You have the honor if the government confers the honor on you. The question for navigation should be whether the reader who is using the category to search is looking for women whom editors think took part in the Revolution, or for women who were given the title of "heroine" for their participation in the Revolution. So it comes down to whether we expect that the reader wants to use the category as a list of people who have received a certain honor. User:Kingsif - Is that a correct statement of what your appeal is about? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. And I guess "Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence" is also vaguely inaccurate since many of them didn't fight, either (I'm actually not sure if any did at all). I.e. the original discussion was opened for the wrong reasons (someone falsely assumed a neutrality issue, people voted based on that), and the new name is wrong for the pages being sorted. There shouldn't be any name discussion besides reinstating what is accurate; if you now also want to discuss whether having a category for these women is valuable, that's a different thing that perhaps needs a different discussion. Either way, I think the Wikipedia view is to rather not have a category than have a poorly-named one. Kingsif ( talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • From a procedural point of view this discussion may be relisted. The outcome of the discussion will most probably not change however, because the new information will be discarded per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Even if they were given the title of heroines, it is POV to use it as a category title. Dimadick ( talk) 09:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
No it's not. That's like saying it's POV to describe people given the honorary title "The Most Honourable" as "The Most Honourable". Use heroína is you have to, but it's a title not an adjective. Kingsif ( talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
We do not categorize by honorary title. IFF there were a membership in a notable organization, that might be something else.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revert: I agree that the project should have been notified directly, a CFR template is not enough for the recent (low) activity of the project. Also I do not agree that it is an inaccurate title. The Venezuelan National Pantheon has a list of "heroinas/heroines", soldiers or not, this title is the actual descriptor. Maybe it can be renamed afterwards to National heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence or something like that, but the removal was maybe too quick. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The vast majority of CFD discussions could be overturned on the basis of not manually notifying WikiProjects instead of relying on the automated templates. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as non-participant — the usual notifications were posted, no procedural deficiency. There is no main article for an award of "heroine"/heroína. In general we don't categorize by posthumous awards. If many/most of the women listed were not in fact participants, then "in" should be changed to "of", matching parent Category:People of the Venezuelan War of Independence.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That may well be, but an overall new discussion is probably best for that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Emdorse it is POV-pushing to use a title like heroine. We do not slavishly follow biased promotional language. Beyond that as designating a specific award this almost certainly violates Over categorization by award. However the general intersection covered by the award is categorizable by, but we should not limit this category explicitly to award recipients. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Cryptic: Those exceptions have been steadily dwindling in CFD though: Category:Heroes of Labour (GDR), Category:National Heroes of Barbados, Category:Places named for Confederate heroes by state, Category:National Heroes of Turkey, Category:Tatar heroes and Category:Heroes of Kosovo have all turned red. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn or relist on the presumption that the title is a formal award name, and hence if POV, intractably so based on RS'es and something to be explained rather than suppressed. Jclemens ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close - I really do hate to be bureaucratic, but this was a requested rename, not a requested deletion. The forum for review of rename discussions, including at CfD, is Wikipedia:Move review. I would recommend a procedural close of this discussion without prejudice to its being reopened at that location. See WP:PCLOSE. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The category was deleted, so deletion review seems perfectly appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
No, the category wasn't deleted. It was moved to Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence. See this log entry. As such, move review is the correct forum. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Move review supervises proposed moves. Deletion review is the supervisory body for AfD, MfD, CfD, and FfD. This is the correct venue.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That used to be accurate, but as a result of this 2018 RfC, move review was given jurisdiction over CfDs and RfDs that were "limited in scope to renaming". This is why the policy at MR states that "CfDs and RfDs can only be reviewed [at move review] if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion Review" (emphasis added). The CfD at issue here was "limited in scope to renaming," so it "can only be reviewed" at move review. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That rather poorly-attended RfC says you can use move review for these, but it doesn't say that you must. I revise my position to read: this is a correct venue.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I think the clear intent of the RfC was to state that "the deletion review process is not suitable for reviewing move-related discussions." I can't see any contributors expressing the view that move review should become an alternative forum. If anything, that would create an undue degree of bureaucracy, and it would encourage forum-shopping. (It's also just illogical: Why would deletion review review something that wasn't a deletion?) However, since my view pretty clearly isn't going to carry the day, I'll !vote in the alternative to relist for consideration of the newly presented information. Although we do not and should not require notification of WikiProjects, we do allow relisting when new information is presented. That's the situation here, so (if venue is proper, which it isn't) I would relist without expressing an opinion on who is actually right about the category name. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
This is a proper forum. CfD is a place where deletion discussions take place, and deletion was a potential outcome in the discussion, even though it was moved. I'm not sure this is the right forum for move discussions on article pages, and I'd never heard of move review until now, but discussions which occur in venues in which deletion could be an outcome are more than welcome here. Enforcing a move to a lesser-used venue on a technicality hurts the project. SportingFlyer T· C 02:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The folks at move review are generally more informed about the nuances of naming policy than we are here at DRV, so I do feel that there would be a tangible benefit in enforcing this "technicality". (I freely admit that I'm in the minority here, which is why I cast an alternative !vote.) That being said, the very fact that we have two forums doing the same thing (evaluating consensus in XFDs) is in my view a clear sign of over-bureaucratization, and I would thus support a merger of DRV and MR. That, however, is perhaps a discussion that will have to be saved for another time. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We don't ask deletion nominators to inform WikiProjects, and we never have. In this case the WikiProject was informed but not in the WikiProject's preferred manner. I can't find any procedural defect whatsoever in that respect. However, setting aside that concern, it's clear that the CfD participants thought the "Heroine" title was awarded by Wikipedians, and it wasn't. Contrary to what's posted above, we absolutely do categorize by honorary title, such as Chevaliers of the Légion d'honneur; Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; and so on. Although deletion review normally corrects procedural defects, it does on rare occasions find that it's necessary to overturn a decision that might have been procedurally correct when the discussion got the facts horribly wrong ( example), and I recommend this outcome here. Please would the closer consider specifically saying in the close that it's not needful to inform WikiProjects of deletions.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • relist discussion was flawed. Maybe we shouldn't have the category, but the reason for the move doesn't make sense with the notion this is a specific title/award.didn't sign, sorry, Hobit ( talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I would relist the article if there was a main article, but we don't have one, so I endorse the change. Lettler hello • contribs 03:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I !voted above I for one am finding this discussion to be a bit disappointing. If the original discussion was flawed, we should have another one. There may well be other reasons to delete/rename this category. But those reasons should be debated and they haven't been. Arguments about not having a main article, or not categorizing by honorary title, or whatever don't belong at DRV--they belong at CfD. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Hobit: I think we all agree that flawed CFDs should be relisted and CFDs should not be relisted just to add a minor point in the discussion that won't change the outcome. We just happen to sincerely disagree about which of those options describes this situation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single !vote involved the issue of neutrality, which I think we all agree doesn't really apply. I don't see how that's "adding a minor point". If there are other reasons to delete it, that discussion goes at CfD, not here. The folks here aren't experts on categories... Hobit ( talk) 04:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single !vote supported the nom to keep the category but change the name to better aid navigation. Whether the problematic original category name was due to WP:NPOV or WP:OCAWARD is a minor point. (I appreciate your viewpoint here as an effort to improve the encyclopedia by following the process; people who disagree also think they're improving the encyclopedia by following the process.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I'm seriously having a problem seeing it that way. Not one person said anything about better navigation. We can agree to disagree here, but I just can't see how you are seeing that. And I don't see a single argument, here or there, that this isn't a defining award for most of these folks. I don't see how we can do something based on OCAWARD without evidence this isn't a defining award. I've no doubt you are trying to improve things, I just feel you are pulling arguments out of the CfD that aren't even vaguely there as far as I can see. Could you explain how you think the discussion at CfD was about better navigation? As I see it, every comment was about POV/neutrality issues, not navigation. What do you think I'm missing? Hobit ( talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you for that; we likely won't agree here, but I appreciate the conversation. The intro to WP:CAT reads "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages". The WP:CFD discussions are part of that effort to improve navigation, again per the intro to WP:OC and a POV pushing category without navigational benefit would have been deleted outright. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
And I continue to not see a single argument in the CfD that says anything about navigational benefits and this lacking said benefits. Could you quote something from the discussion that leads you to believe the discussion concluded something about navigational benefits? Hobit ( talk) 04:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I've probably missed something, but from what I can tell (several Spanish language searches) this doesn't appear to have been a posthumous award at all, but rather they're just referred to as "heroines" by secondary sources. Overturning this on grounds that it was an award doesn't make sense. If I'm mistaken and we do have evidence someone awarded them posthumously, I don't think OCAWARD is met, but it's probably close enough for an additional discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 02:02, 24 February 2021 (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/2021_February_6&oldid=1039505964"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 February 5
2021 February 7 >

6 February 2021

  • Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence – category rename closure endorsed. There is some acknowledgement that there may have been some information missed in the discussion, but the overall response is substantially against reopening it. The assertion that the WikiProject was not notified is disputed, and most overall opinions on the article seem to suggest that the closure would not change even with the new information. ~ mazca talk 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Did not notify WikiProject Venezuela, and if they had someone would have told them "heroine" is an actual title - these women were given the honor "heroine"/heroína - not a neutrality concern, i.e. see at the articles in the category like Ana María Campos. Kingsif ( talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Another notice appeared right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Article alerts. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
XfD templates being automatically added to a procedural page is not notifying a WikiProject; at least, not suitably. A courtesy message at the talk page is expected. WP Venezuela even has a deletion discussion page that this was not added to. Kingsif ( talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That is not our documented process.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Kingsif: Would you might putting a strikethrough the part of this nomination that said the WikiProject was not notified, since your concern is how they were notified not whether they were notified. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
No. I wasn't so much saying there was a procedural deficiency, but that if anyone in the original discussion had thought to ask someone who might have subject knowledge (i.e. at the WikiProject, and would have endeavored to make sure the message was received) then the mistaken basis for renaming wouldn't have been made. I'm not arguing for or against rename or deletion, nor that the original decision be discarded for not being filed properly, but that all the !votes were made on an incorrect assumption and nobody bothered to seek the truth. If your proposal for rename/deletion is coming from a name issue, you should make sure to find out if there's actually an issue at all first. That's the complaint about not actually trying to communicate with the WikiProject. Kingsif ( talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (as participant) for four reasons: 1) There was no procedural deficiency in the nomination; the multiple WikiProject notices were just overlooked. 2) The claim that there was not a neutrality violation because there is a non-defining award called "heroine" just moves the issue from WP:NPOV to WP:OCAWARD. 3) The !votes here were not close. 4) The reason they were not close is because Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence is a clearer name more likely to aid navigaiton. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Are you claiming that this award isn't a defining characteristic of most of the people in the category? It seems likely it would be. And the new name is really an utterly different thing. Hobit ( talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It appears that the appellant is saying that "heroine" is a specific honor that is conferred, often posthumously, on women who were freedom fighters in the Venezuelan Revolution, comparable to a knighthood or a medal. You have the honor if the government confers the honor on you. The question for navigation should be whether the reader who is using the category to search is looking for women whom editors think took part in the Revolution, or for women who were given the title of "heroine" for their participation in the Revolution. So it comes down to whether we expect that the reader wants to use the category as a list of people who have received a certain honor. User:Kingsif - Is that a correct statement of what your appeal is about? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. And I guess "Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence" is also vaguely inaccurate since many of them didn't fight, either (I'm actually not sure if any did at all). I.e. the original discussion was opened for the wrong reasons (someone falsely assumed a neutrality issue, people voted based on that), and the new name is wrong for the pages being sorted. There shouldn't be any name discussion besides reinstating what is accurate; if you now also want to discuss whether having a category for these women is valuable, that's a different thing that perhaps needs a different discussion. Either way, I think the Wikipedia view is to rather not have a category than have a poorly-named one. Kingsif ( talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • From a procedural point of view this discussion may be relisted. The outcome of the discussion will most probably not change however, because the new information will be discarded per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Even if they were given the title of heroines, it is POV to use it as a category title. Dimadick ( talk) 09:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
No it's not. That's like saying it's POV to describe people given the honorary title "The Most Honourable" as "The Most Honourable". Use heroína is you have to, but it's a title not an adjective. Kingsif ( talk) 10:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
We do not categorize by honorary title. IFF there were a membership in a notable organization, that might be something else.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Revert: I agree that the project should have been notified directly, a CFR template is not enough for the recent (low) activity of the project. Also I do not agree that it is an inaccurate title. The Venezuelan National Pantheon has a list of "heroinas/heroines", soldiers or not, this title is the actual descriptor. Maybe it can be renamed afterwards to National heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence or something like that, but the removal was maybe too quick. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The vast majority of CFD discussions could be overturned on the basis of not manually notifying WikiProjects instead of relying on the automated templates. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as non-participant — the usual notifications were posted, no procedural deficiency. There is no main article for an award of "heroine"/heroína. In general we don't categorize by posthumous awards. If many/most of the women listed were not in fact participants, then "in" should be changed to "of", matching parent Category:People of the Venezuelan War of Independence.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That may well be, but an overall new discussion is probably best for that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Emdorse it is POV-pushing to use a title like heroine. We do not slavishly follow biased promotional language. Beyond that as designating a specific award this almost certainly violates Over categorization by award. However the general intersection covered by the award is categorizable by, but we should not limit this category explicitly to award recipients. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Cryptic: Those exceptions have been steadily dwindling in CFD though: Category:Heroes of Labour (GDR), Category:National Heroes of Barbados, Category:Places named for Confederate heroes by state, Category:National Heroes of Turkey, Category:Tatar heroes and Category:Heroes of Kosovo have all turned red. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn or relist on the presumption that the title is a formal award name, and hence if POV, intractably so based on RS'es and something to be explained rather than suppressed. Jclemens ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close - I really do hate to be bureaucratic, but this was a requested rename, not a requested deletion. The forum for review of rename discussions, including at CfD, is Wikipedia:Move review. I would recommend a procedural close of this discussion without prejudice to its being reopened at that location. See WP:PCLOSE. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The category was deleted, so deletion review seems perfectly appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
No, the category wasn't deleted. It was moved to Category:Women in the Venezuelan War of Independence. See this log entry. As such, move review is the correct forum. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Move review supervises proposed moves. Deletion review is the supervisory body for AfD, MfD, CfD, and FfD. This is the correct venue.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That used to be accurate, but as a result of this 2018 RfC, move review was given jurisdiction over CfDs and RfDs that were "limited in scope to renaming". This is why the policy at MR states that "CfDs and RfDs can only be reviewed [at move review] if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion Review" (emphasis added). The CfD at issue here was "limited in scope to renaming," so it "can only be reviewed" at move review. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That rather poorly-attended RfC says you can use move review for these, but it doesn't say that you must. I revise my position to read: this is a correct venue.— S Marshall  T/ C 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I think the clear intent of the RfC was to state that "the deletion review process is not suitable for reviewing move-related discussions." I can't see any contributors expressing the view that move review should become an alternative forum. If anything, that would create an undue degree of bureaucracy, and it would encourage forum-shopping. (It's also just illogical: Why would deletion review review something that wasn't a deletion?) However, since my view pretty clearly isn't going to carry the day, I'll !vote in the alternative to relist for consideration of the newly presented information. Although we do not and should not require notification of WikiProjects, we do allow relisting when new information is presented. That's the situation here, so (if venue is proper, which it isn't) I would relist without expressing an opinion on who is actually right about the category name. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
This is a proper forum. CfD is a place where deletion discussions take place, and deletion was a potential outcome in the discussion, even though it was moved. I'm not sure this is the right forum for move discussions on article pages, and I'd never heard of move review until now, but discussions which occur in venues in which deletion could be an outcome are more than welcome here. Enforcing a move to a lesser-used venue on a technicality hurts the project. SportingFlyer T· C 02:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The folks at move review are generally more informed about the nuances of naming policy than we are here at DRV, so I do feel that there would be a tangible benefit in enforcing this "technicality". (I freely admit that I'm in the minority here, which is why I cast an alternative !vote.) That being said, the very fact that we have two forums doing the same thing (evaluating consensus in XFDs) is in my view a clear sign of over-bureaucratization, and I would thus support a merger of DRV and MR. That, however, is perhaps a discussion that will have to be saved for another time. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • We don't ask deletion nominators to inform WikiProjects, and we never have. In this case the WikiProject was informed but not in the WikiProject's preferred manner. I can't find any procedural defect whatsoever in that respect. However, setting aside that concern, it's clear that the CfD participants thought the "Heroine" title was awarded by Wikipedians, and it wasn't. Contrary to what's posted above, we absolutely do categorize by honorary title, such as Chevaliers of the Légion d'honneur; Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; and so on. Although deletion review normally corrects procedural defects, it does on rare occasions find that it's necessary to overturn a decision that might have been procedurally correct when the discussion got the facts horribly wrong ( example), and I recommend this outcome here. Please would the closer consider specifically saying in the close that it's not needful to inform WikiProjects of deletions.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • relist discussion was flawed. Maybe we shouldn't have the category, but the reason for the move doesn't make sense with the notion this is a specific title/award.didn't sign, sorry, Hobit ( talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I would relist the article if there was a main article, but we don't have one, so I endorse the change. Lettler hello • contribs 03:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I !voted above I for one am finding this discussion to be a bit disappointing. If the original discussion was flawed, we should have another one. There may well be other reasons to delete/rename this category. But those reasons should be debated and they haven't been. Arguments about not having a main article, or not categorizing by honorary title, or whatever don't belong at DRV--they belong at CfD. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Hobit: I think we all agree that flawed CFDs should be relisted and CFDs should not be relisted just to add a minor point in the discussion that won't change the outcome. We just happen to sincerely disagree about which of those options describes this situation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single !vote involved the issue of neutrality, which I think we all agree doesn't really apply. I don't see how that's "adding a minor point". If there are other reasons to delete it, that discussion goes at CfD, not here. The folks here aren't experts on categories... Hobit ( talk) 04:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Every single !vote supported the nom to keep the category but change the name to better aid navigation. Whether the problematic original category name was due to WP:NPOV or WP:OCAWARD is a minor point. (I appreciate your viewpoint here as an effort to improve the encyclopedia by following the process; people who disagree also think they're improving the encyclopedia by following the process.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I'm seriously having a problem seeing it that way. Not one person said anything about better navigation. We can agree to disagree here, but I just can't see how you are seeing that. And I don't see a single argument, here or there, that this isn't a defining award for most of these folks. I don't see how we can do something based on OCAWARD without evidence this isn't a defining award. I've no doubt you are trying to improve things, I just feel you are pulling arguments out of the CfD that aren't even vaguely there as far as I can see. Could you explain how you think the discussion at CfD was about better navigation? As I see it, every comment was about POV/neutrality issues, not navigation. What do you think I'm missing? Hobit ( talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you for that; we likely won't agree here, but I appreciate the conversation. The intro to WP:CAT reads "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages". The WP:CFD discussions are part of that effort to improve navigation, again per the intro to WP:OC and a POV pushing category without navigational benefit would have been deleted outright. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
And I continue to not see a single argument in the CfD that says anything about navigational benefits and this lacking said benefits. Could you quote something from the discussion that leads you to believe the discussion concluded something about navigational benefits? Hobit ( talk) 04:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I've probably missed something, but from what I can tell (several Spanish language searches) this doesn't appear to have been a posthumous award at all, but rather they're just referred to as "heroines" by secondary sources. Overturning this on grounds that it was an award doesn't make sense. If I'm mistaken and we do have evidence someone awarded them posthumously, I don't think OCAWARD is met, but it's probably close enough for an additional discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 02:02, 24 February 2021 (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/2021_February_6&oldid=1039505964"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE