Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/C4

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

C4 (duplicate categories)

 * "Any newly created category that serves the same function as an existing category (after all articles from the former have been moved to the latter)" should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.


 * The reason is that if you want an existing category renamed, you should discuss it on WP:CFD. People sometimes incidentally create categories such as Category:Mozart symphonies, unaware of the existence of Category:Symphonies by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
 * Note that in present Wikimedia implementation, a category cannot be redirected to another.
 * If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

[ vote] – discuss

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) Seems reasonable. DES 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
 * 2) Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:00 (UTC)
 * 3) humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
 * 4) --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
 * 5) Will support a test run. But I'd like to know, can someone tell me if categories can be undeleted like articles? --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
 * Since building a category requires adding the tag to all of the involved pages, that would generally have to be restored by hand. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
 * 1) I guess we can give this a test run. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
 * Though I share some of User:Dragons flight's concerns, they should come to light or not in a month of testing. -Splash 5 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
 * 2) deserves a test run  JoJan 5 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
 * 4) Sounds good enough — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
 * 5) Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I've seen it happen more than once. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
 * 7) Obvious case of a thing which should be deleted. CFD is not bogged down yet, but there is no need to divert the users attention to CFD for obvious cases when they could be spending time on VFD instead. Sjakkalle (Check!)  6 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)
 * 8) Ambi 6 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
 * 9) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
 * 11) Kaldari 6 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
 * 12) Support.   ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:32 (UTC)
 * 13) Truth.  Grue   7 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
 * 14) Support.  Good idea. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)
 * 15) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:30 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
 * 17) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. TheCoffee 21:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) -- nyenyec ☎ 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Shanes 06:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Quite common situation on CfD, only takes people time. Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support... Okay, I guess. IanManka 06:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 06:55, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Vegaswikian 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The judgment factor bothers me. There are cases which can appear redundant but aren't, consider "British battles" vs. "Battles in England", where the first indicates that the British participated in the battle and the second is based on the geography of where the battle occurred.  If an author self-nominates as a mistake it can still be deleted for that reason, but I am opposed to this since it doesn't require at least asking the creator why he made a new category percieved to be redundant.  Dragons flight July 4, 2005 21:19 (UTC)
 * 2) *That is a good point. Arguably those two do not serve the same function, though. Would it help if the proposal was worded stronger to make it be exactly the same function? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 08:07 (UTC)
 * 3) **They are different. The problem is that things like this can be mistaken as not different.  The example isn't arbitrary either.  Several weeks ago there was a big mess at CFD because something like this was deleted because the voters didn't recognize the distinction being made.  If those kinds of judgment mistakes can survive full votes, then I am certainly wary of making them even more pervasive through speedy.  Simply verifying the author's intent would cover this however.  Dragons flight July 5, 2005 18:45 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose because:
 * 5) This functionality is already covered and implemented in the speedy deletion policies in WP:CFD, and as such, this is redundant.
 * 6) When something like this is found, it can't just be deleted, the articles must be moved; WP:CFD has mechanisms for this. (If it's only a few articles this is moot.)
 * 7) Frequently in WP:CFD, the original name is deleted if the new name is considered an improvement. A typical speedy deletion might not allow for this judgement.  Addition of a working category redirect would make this point also moot.
 * --ssd 5 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your first point. CFD has speedy renaming policies, but no speedy deletion policies other than three about empty cats on WP:CSD. Please explain? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 08:07 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Dragons flight, also, redundant to CFD. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
 * 2) Per all of the above. Besides, don't category redirects work now? --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
 * 3) *I'm afraid they don't. For linking, yes, they do. But if one inserts an article into a category that redirects to another, the article won't get inserted in the latter. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 5, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Dragons Flight. Xoloz 5 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)
 * 5) What they said.Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * 6) WP:CFD works fine as it is. See also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Don't think this is necessary; doesn't happen very often and CFD can cope with the load. David | Talk 5 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
 * 8) Solution in search of a problem - David Gerard 5 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose.  The lack of category redirects is a problem, but it's not one that's resulting in a CFD overload.  In any case, this is too subjective, as pointed out above. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:45 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. CFD is not that bogged down... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:44 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Speedy is not a good substitute for a discussion of categories to delete.  Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. If a category is redundant from a CFD debate going against it - then it is deleted as part of that process. If someone creates a similar category, it should go through CFD (as it might be a better classification or something). zoney ♣ talk 6 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I'd like to see this talked about in CFD first --BaronLarf July 6, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
 * 14) Is this really necessary or advisable?  --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, instruction creep unnecessary given rarity. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Not a big vandalism target.  Let's wait until we're having the same discussion at CfD.  Wikibofh 6 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. I think it's better to handle these cases in CFD. Sietse 6 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
 * 18) Changed my mind. Sometimes a new editor comes up with a far better name than we already have, so they should go through CfD. Besides, CfD is under control at the moment. -Splash 6 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
 * 19) --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Unnecessary. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
 * 21) jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Unnecessary as CfD can handle these. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:55 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose agree with dragonsflight Peregrine AY  7 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose agree with Splash, and what would keep someone from creating a new cat, moving the articles over, and listing the old one for speedy. Since there can be a great deal of speedy's at one time, the admin may not look to see which one is older. <> Who? <font color=#FF00FF>¿ <font color=#0033FF>? 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
 * 25) Unnecessary. When a duplicate category is created, the articles in it can (and should) be moved to the proper categories (or have the category tag removed if they were included inappropriately). An empty category can already be speedily deleted. Oppose - Mike Rosoft 8 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
 * 26) CFD is for this. Grace Note 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Dsmdgold 15:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. What is the same purpose? Superm401 | Talk 13:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose- Superm401 raises a good point. Also, what if the new category has a better name for the existing category? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)