User talk:Osbojos/Categories for Deletion Issues

Categories for Deletion Issues
Hi, I just happened across the CFD for Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9, and I believe that this was wrongly decided for a variety of reasons. (I.e., purely descriptive facts related to race do not equal racism, there are professional associations of journalists by ethnicity, etc.) I see useful categories deleted constantly, and frankly I'm sick of it. The main problem I see is that very few wikipedians put categories on their watchlists, so a small subset of people (who seemed to have a reflex towards "delete as unencyclopedic") have a disproportionate say in how CFDs turn out. I'd like to see both a deletion review for these categories, and somehow address the larger problem of useful categories being deleted without potentially interested parties ever people informed. If you have any comments or suggestions on either matter, please post them below and feel free to invite others to join the discussion. Thanks. --Osbojos 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with you. The delete page "regulars" always vote "delete" on everything, without making a convincing argument about why they are depleting our encyclopedia in this manner. Please let me know if you do a review on these. Badagnani 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well - there wasn't even any time for my comment to be digested on this one, before it was closed - there has to be an end to discussion, for sure, but I would think someone questioning the foundation of the nom might be given a little bit of time for people to consider the concept. Please let me know if this moves forward too - I am also sick of the way they are distorting the encyclopedia and destroying years of work by hundreds - thousands - of editors. They misinterpret WP:NOT and have done a lot of damage, not only to categories but also Lists (particularly in popular culture areas, but others too).  Sometimes things need to be deleted of course - but this is out of hand. Tvoz | talk 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a current example of the list-delete mania: - going down I'm sure.  No one responds to the points raised - there's no attempt to discuss - just a bunch of voters.  It's disheartening. Tvoz | talk 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, at a bare minimum, when you notice lists or categories like this where a decision hasn't been finalized, please alert me to them. I've added a section below for such cases. --Osbojos 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I attempted to speak up several times during these discussion, explaining that first, the need for collaboration in many areas was important, that the topics needed could not always be predicted in advance, that no real distinction was being made between useful and useless categories, and that the categories as well as userboxes were necessary because many Wikipedians preferred not to   make use of user boxes at all.
 * Additionally, Wikipedia, like any group project, had social elements as well; that these elements supported the work of Wikipedia, and were a significant factor in bringing people into the project and keeping them. Agreed that they should not be the primary factor in WP, or even a major part: but they are not, and we have adequate means to deal with the people who join with mainly social purposes in mind. I myself do not use these categories, but I saw no reason to interfere with those who did.
 * I further said that the attempt to decide a matter affecting so many Wikipedians in an obscure process was altogether unfair, and that a community discussion on these categories was needed. I contributed only at some of the discussions, as I could not keep up with the concentrated repetitive arguments used by the group of three or four very experienced Wikipedians engaged in promoting these deletions.  I did say that the deletions would not hold up once the broader community became involved.  DGG (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * People need to patrol the WP:CFD pages more. Anyone who has an interest in any category and it's sub-cats should add it to their watch list as a matter of course.  It is frustrating to see useful categories get deleted, but the arguement saying "it's useful" isn't a valid one (according to the WP policy...).  I've recently questioned the discission on the deletion of eponymous band categories, and the resulting reply was that a precendent was sent (when, where, by whom - I don't know) and these cats are being deleted en-mass.  Now I don't use those cats myself, but I suggested that the policy should be reviewed, or exceptions made on them.  Fell on deaf ears.  However, at the end of the day there needs to be a good arguement of why it should be kept.  Maybe try to find a CFD nomination that got kept and look at the sound reasons behind it! Lugnuts 07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Usefulness isn't a justification? Why not? this section of Categorization leads me to believe usefulness is a criterion. Is there a page that lays out category policy that I'm missing? It doesn't seem like any of the delete-happy wikipedians rely on such a policy page to justify their opinions. At Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_about_pianists they're relying on misapplying WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, so even if my usefulness argument can justifiably be ignored (although I don't think it can), I think my argument that they're misapplying policy is exactly the kind of "good argument" you're suggesting I make. Not that any of this matters, the rule seems to be that any valid argument for category retention is disregarded as a matter of course. --Osbojos 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * nevermind, I just found WP:OC--Osbojos 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How and Where to Create a Broad Discussion on CFD Policy
I've edited wikipedia casually for several years, but I find the policy/bureacracy to be impenetrably convoluted. Let's say we (or just I) were to propose a change in the way CFDs were announced (e.g., perhaps an announcement of the CFD should be added to every page in the category). Where would a person post such a proposal? --Osbojos 20:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion page for WP:UCFD would seem the obvious place. It should probably be mentioned elsewhere so that people are aware of it. DGG (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After a little digging, I guess the best place would be here: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion_policies, Wikipedia_talk:Categorization, and Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion. (UCFD is specifically for user categories, which, personally, I don't feel that strongly about.) I see people do occasionally bring up the same concerns I have on the pages I linked above, and they're dismissed out of hand. I'd like to provoke a discussion that actually requires some thought and consideration on the part of the CFD-regulars. Having a critical mass of people who think there is too strong of a tendency towards deletion participate in the discussion seems like one necessary element. Creating a list of questionably deleted cats could provide more ammunition. Feel free to add them to the subsection below. --Osbojos 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Comments and Suggestions
First, I strongly urge all concerned users/editors to get over to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11 ASAP and get your comments in, on whichever categories are of interest, before it's too late to matter. I just barely missed out on a category from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_10 -- the discussion was literally closed while I was working on my comments! And yes, it was deleted, to my dismay. (I just added it to the list, above). I never even had a chance to look at any of the rest on that day's list of categories.

I haven't looked through all of the cats that are listed on July 11, but I do know of one that concerns me: subcategories of ethnic American singers, which is nearly identical to the ethnic subcats of American journalists that were just deleted.

Another one that I know of is about the single ethnic subcategory Jewish American comedians, which is on the July 13 list, so there's a little more time on that one.

I have a lot more to say about all of this, but I need to run now, so I will close with a suggestion for Osbojos: rather than keeping this discussion and related material here on your Talk page, I would suggest moving it to a sub-page of either your talk page or your user page. In other words, create a "sub-page" under the heading "Categories for Deletion Issues", i.e. User_talk:Osbojos/Categories for Deletion Issues (I think it's possible to have a sub-page for your talk page, but if not, you can create the sub-page User:Osbojos/Categories for Deletion Issues). Gotta go now! Cgingold 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Osbojos -- glad to see you took up my suggestion on moving this to a new page!
 * I've just finished posting a long comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11, which really needs more input as it is going heavily in the wrong (IMHO) direction. It won't stay open very much longer, so anybody who wants to put their "two cents" in needs to get it done ASAP. Cgingold 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - I've moved two sections to the bottom of the page -- I think it would be good to keep them there, if possible.

CfD isn't the problem, AfD is
I too am upset about some of the rampant deletions going on, but it isn't CfD that is bothering me. I first started participating at CfD about 2 years ago when I was upset by some categories that got deleted. Since that time, I've realized that there are some very real problems related to our categorization system the necessitate many if not almost all of the deletions that have been happening recently. I would suggest that people read Overcategorization and its discussion pages to understand the rationale behind some of this. Also, take a look at Category intersection to get a sense of what the future of categorization will probably be in not too long a time.

In its current form, our categorization system cannot satisfy everyone. It is very difficult to maintain a system that makes sense and does not degrade into a pure tagging system. It was my hope that many of the categories that get deleted could find a life a lists. Unfortunately, the people who regularly patrol AfD seem to be very gung-ho at deleting lists using very similar criteria for deletion that CfD uses to delete categories. I believe that the policies for making and keeping lists should be much more liberal than those for making and keeping categories. My reading of WP:NOT and our core policies on verifiability and NPOV justify the inclusion of many lists that have been recently deleted.

If we are to fight the battle for keeping material in Wikipedia, it should be a coordinated approach that looks at material and evaluates the information to decide if it could become a good category, a good list, a good infobox or a good article. If something is to be deleted in every form, it should only be because of some very egregious wrong -- blatant POV, attacks, meaningless rants and other silliness.

I don't think CfD is broken. I've fought many battles there, and have also closed some tough decisions. Over the last year, there is an emerging understanding about what the categorization system should be and how it should evolve. I DO think that AfD is broken. Because AfD is broken, I am becoming reluctant to advocate "listifying" or deleting inappropriate categories.

I hope that we can look at this problem with a larger perspective. How do we create a system that protects information at Wikipedia? I don't mind deleting a category, list, infobox or article if the information finds a better, more appropriate home some other form. I do mind the attitude that something is "unencyclopedic" just because the information in dispute is not found in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I think this attitude is very damaging to the project. It must be stopped. It will take a larger perspective to solve these problems. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also more concerned about article (including lists) deletions which have been running rampant, because of the inherent loss of information and utterly arbitrary nature of the Afds and the misuse of policy. I have to think more about categories, but Sam's point is worth considering. Tvoz | talk 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam, sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your post. I appreciate you taking the time to write it. I agree that AfD is broken, but the reason I'm concerned about CfD is that only the most involved, policy-oriented wikipedians tend to add categories to their watchlists. Regular users to have an interest in a certain category generally don't hear about the CfD until the category is deleted, even though they might have valid policy views that go unexpressed or are not expressed in sufficient numbers to create a "consensus." Take the recently deleted category Jewish American comedians and my vain attempt at deletion review for example: Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_19. In both the CfD and the review, valid arguments to retain the category were made, but a critical mass of people who seem to instinctively delete anything that might even superficially indicate WP:OC are always there to mis- and over interpret the policy. Now I understand OC is a valid problem and that the majority of CfD cats need to be deleted, the problem is that many valid categories get swept up with the rest and never receive the scrutiny they deserve. Lists do seem like a better alternative, any insight on how to ensure lists survive AfD?


 * I know about category intersection, and I do think it will ameliorate the problem. But, as someone pointed out on the category intersection discussion page, it's not perfect. Take, for example, an actor who served as a producer but did not act in, let's say, the TV show "Friends". Category intersection would take the cat "actors" and the category "Friends" to mislead people into thinking this person was an actor on friends.


 * By the way, what's wrong with having a generic tagging system?--Osbojos 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Wrongly Deleted Categores
(half a dozen subcategories of American journalists by ethnicity) (bands with only one constant member, bands with no constant members)
 * Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9
 * Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12
 * Category:Individuals_challenging_the_official_account_of_9/11


 * Three ethnic subcategories of American singers - closed as rename and merge into American singers which is worthless, if you ask me Tvoz | talk 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Jewish_American_comedians

Useful Lists and Categories Saved from Deletion

 * Category:African-American singers is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_22. This is a follow-on discussion to the recent multi-category CFD for other ethnic-American singers. Cgingold 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just took a stand on this, with a strong (and I hope, compelling) articulation of the need to give ethnicity equal standing with occupation in Wiki categories. Please check it out, and add your own comment, if you care about that issue. Cgingold 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good News! - Category:African-American singers has been retained because there was no concensus for deletion. If enough people weigh in on these discussions, perhaps we can turn the tide on the ethnic categories deletion frenzy. Cgingold 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A grouping of 11 (yes, eleven!) subcategories of Category:People by former religion -- some or all of which may merit retention -- are up for deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23. Cgingold 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I have solved with my recent edits the major stated reason for deletion of the (sub-)categories of Category:People by former religion. Andries 14:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These categories have been retained because there was no concensus for deletion. Again, enough editors weighed in with arguments in favor of keeping to turn back the push for deletion. Cgingold 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Three ethnic subcats of scientists (Tamil & Malayali scientists and Tamil Nobel laureates) are up for deletion. I was encouraged to see the following remark posted by one of the participants in the discussion:


 * "This nomination does not seem to recognise the ethnicity tree to which these categories also belong. No ethnic cleansing please!"


 * To join the discussion, go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_26 and add your comments ASAP -- this discussion is probably going to close tomorrow (July 31). Cgingold 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * More good news! - The CFD for these categories was in favor of keeping them -- not just "no concensus" (which at least translates to retention). Cgingold 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful Lists and Categories Currently Under Consideration for Deletion
Please include useful lists and categories currently under consideration for deletion in the list below.


 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_about_pianists - closed as no consensus, but I won't be surprised to see it renominated Tvoz | talk 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:State terrorism has been under discusion here since July 17. I haven't finished evaluating the arguments, but it's a major issue that should have wide input. Cgingold 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)




 * Category:Film_directors_by_religion, along with its sub-cats (Mormon, Jewish, and Roman Catholic film directors), is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_27.

This discussion will probably close in 2 days (August 1). Cgingold 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This CFD discussion is still open for comment, though not for very long. I've just posted what I think is a novel and important argument for keeping categories like this. Please take a minute to check it out, and hopefully add your own comments. Cgingold 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if anybody's checking in here any more, but there's a crucial CFD discussion under way re Category:African American baseball players. If this one goes down, pretty much anything can be deleted. It started on August 3, so as usual, time is of the essence. Cgingold 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The nomination appeared to have been withdrawn by the nominator, there was at worst no consensus, yet the CfD was closed as delete/merge.  I don't get it. Tvoz | talk 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Reviews
This page: Deletion review was brought to my attention. If you feel strongly about a deleted category that you believe was wrongfully removed, you can challenge it there. Providing you've got a strong arguement to challenge the original ruling, of course. The category that was brought to my attention was Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18. Lugnuts 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing the category to my attention. I do intend to start proposing some deletion reviews as soon as I get some free time. I'll list them on this page. --Osbojos 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just created a deletion review for Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_19. Please add your comments. --Osbojos 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a deletion review under way for Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 which I just weighed in on. Cgingold 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some_American_actors_by_ethnicity
ANother one

From WP:CFD:

"Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.

Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised."

Would someone please explain 1) what it means by "the community has made a decision" - would that be one admin and two or three editors? when there also are two or three in opposition?  and 2) what is meant by "for more than five days" ? Would that mean "Let's close this page out at 4 and a half days" so we can have a clean page?

This is no doubt a joke, but is there not some truth to it?

Where can this overall problem be discussed? I don't have strong feelings about many category deletions - like Sam, I am much more concerned about Afds, and the attack on lists. But there seems to be a rush to close, often based on whether one admin likes the arguments given, and I think this is bad. We need a community-wide discussion on all of these matters with better guidelines for closing admins. It's not any individual deletion necessarily - it's the wholesale attack that I am very concerned about. Tvoz | talk 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)