User talk:Xdamr/Archive 14

Welcome back

Haven't seen you around (on WP:CFD or elsewhere) for quite some time. I always appreciate your contributions. How are you? Debresser (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Pretty good really - just coming out the other side of a pretty hectic period in Real Life. It's nice to see that things are no less hectic at Cfd! Looks like there has been some terrible fun going on with backlogs! Perhaps I'll be able to do some closing work towards the end of the month. Any major dramas while I've been away? Any fun DRVs (or the long anticipated Cfd Rfc?), or have things finally settled down? (Ha!)

Xdamr^talk 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All quit on the Cfd front. A few relatively new users are making good comments. I'm involved in an ArbCom case, so I am a little off-balance these days. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847)

Hi Xdamr, As you probably know, there is a set of empty cells at the bottom of this page. The {{underconstruction}} tag has been removed. Should a {{incomplete-list}} tag be added in its place?

As an aside, I came to this article while looking at ASPO, and I am left wondering what "Aspo Road, Gulf of Finland" refers to. It is also mentioned on Naval General Service Medal (1847). There are "Aspo Islands" in the area, but I havent heard "road" used in the context of waterways. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I see that the tag was removed - you're right, {{incomplete-list}} should be added. Unfortunately I had to drastically curtail my wp activity in mid-Dec, I still haven't managed to free up the time to get back to writing!

I've looked into the 'Aspo' question. My source states that the action was fought at 'Frederikshavn in the Gulf of Finland'. No specific mention of 'Aspo', either Roads or Islands. For that matter, the only 'Aspo islands' which I can find in the region are down in the south of Sweden - do you know of another? 'Roads' seems quite odd given that these are clearly islands and not any sort of waterway (which would at least be understandable, if a little unusual). My best guess is that the original editor slightly confused themselves - two entries above 'Aspo' is an entry relating to the Battle of the Basque Roads. I imagine that 'roads' became fixed in their mind and mistakenly carried over to the 'Aspo' entry.

Interesting!

Xdamr^talk 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I merely noticed that Aspo Islands where up in that area of the world; I didnt try to track down where abouts.

I'm a bit concerned about who the original editor is. this page has a very similar set of tables - identical layout, content, even capitalisation. Does the book "British Battles and Medals" also have a similar set of tables?

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That page seems to be a wp mirror - navigate around a little and you will see it reproduces the article word for word. User:Acad Ronin and I were both on a bit of a NGSM binge during the beginning of December. The tables in both the NGSM article and the clasps article were added then - User:Acad Ronin was responsible for the former, I worked on the latter. While the core information was substantially derived from 'British Battles and Medals', the tabulation is original.

Xdamr^talk 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:American_liberal_organizations

Please take a second look at this category, which you deleted. There was no consensus for deletion; to the contrary, most participants (and the better arguments in my opinion) favored keeping it, which is what had happened the last time it was nominated. You noted that some editors believed there was no all-encompassing global definition of "liberal" and thus (in their view) it could mean anything; in fact, the category was specifically for American organizations, and a reliably sourced definition from an American dictionary had been provided, and plenty of organizations indisputably fit to populate a category. Almost every category can have borderline examples that might not fit, or that might fit in two overlapping categories, but those do not render the whole category meaningless. The argument that a category stands without citation and so may carry greater weight (which depends on the reader's assumptions anyway) is an argument against applying the category tag to disputed borderline examples, but is not an argument against the category itself. Per WP:NPOV, we should assert facts, meaning "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Many organizations fit indisputably into American_liberal_organizations, and a much larger number would fit if the category were combined with the progressive category (which you also deleted).TVC 15 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message. As you can imagine, I took quite some time in considering the closure for these debates. It is always possible that, with the benefit of a few days distance, conclusions which seemed set and firm may appear less so; for that reason, per your request, I have taken another look at the debate. Having taken this second look, I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your view of the relative strengths of the arguments.

I do not see any way that the terms 'liberal' or 'progressive' can be objectively assessed. This does not mean that there is not a dictionary definition - the fact that there will be is quite obvious - what is does mean is that such definition will be so wide and imprecise as to be of no use. I'd refer you to what I found to be an apt quote from the debate:

Liberalism, like conservatism, is not defined by even a vaguely-formed set of ideological principles; it is a state-of-mind that can be shared by individuals and organizations of a thousand different beliefs and ideologies, and which can and does have a different meaning for each one.

Many examples were presented of a whole range of opinion which could be described as 'liberal'. I found these highly persuasive as an indication that the application of the term in the form of categorisation would be little more than an exercise in rampant subjectivity. This is not a case of marginal or border-line applications - this is a case where the term itself has no definite meaning. One person's understanding will differ from the next person's, both will disagree on whether particular organisations should be thus categorised - it is for this reason that the WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE guideline has been developed.

This whole debate can be reduced to one question. Does "...favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual" have any sort of rigorous objectivity, as is needed for categories? The fact is, that while I can appreciate your idea of the generally understood contemporary US definition of 'liberal', I can look at this definition and see much which could also be applied to 'conservative' organisations. People and organisations can manifest their conservatism and liberalism in so many different ways, over so many different fields, to such varying extents that this categorisation is imprecise and without any real utility. Let's not even get into the fact that 'liberalism' has shifted in meaning over time, to such an extent that a classic 'liberal' might find very little in common with a contemporary US 'progressive liberal'...

Today the controversy is over categorising liberal/conservative organisations. In the past we've dealt with liberal/conservative opinions, political parties, people, etc, etc. In each case the same conclusions have been drawn - these terms don't work for categorisations.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I argued against the deletion of all three mentioned ideological categories as you might have seen. On the subject of Category:American conservative organizations, I hope that "closure pending" means it will soon be deleted. I may have argued that the category should stay, and still believe so, but it is simply unfair and biased to have that category remain while the other two opposing ideological categories were deleted. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet fully finished reading the debate (one or two Real Life distractions unfortunately), but I don't think that I'm giving too much away if I say that I see very few grounds for distinguishing this debate from the two progressive/liberal nominations. I should hopefully have something up within the next hour or two. --Xdamr^talk 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work

Hi Xdamr

I just wanted to say a quick "congratulations" on your closure of the three CfDs on political organisations: Conservative organisations, American liberal organizations, and American progressive organizations.

I happen to agree with the results of those closures (unsurprising, since I made two of the three nominations), but that's not why I am commenting here. What impressed me was that you made a thorough effort to clarify the arguments on both sides, and to weigh those against policy, which was not an easy task given the length of all the discussions and the heat generated along the way. I don't often see CFD closures where there is such a clear evidence of the closer thoroughly analysing the debate to identify the important points, and then setting out the analysis so clearly.

You obviously put a lot of work into these closures, and the result is a clear record of why the decision went the way it did, which will be invaluable if those issues are revisited in the future. In contentious cases such as this, the quality of the closure is as important as the result, and I wish that more CFDs were closed with similar diligence.

Many CFDs are relatively straightforward and don't need much detailed analysis at closing time, and I doubt that it would be humanly possible to have so much care put into closing all of them. However, you clearly do have a skill in weighing the arguments in more contentious cases, and I hope that you can see your way to bringing that to bear more often at CFD -- regardless of whether I like the conclusions you draw in any particular case! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I thought that a reasonable explanation of the rationale was really in the least I could have done. These sorts of debate, lengthy and voluminous with a hefty amount of controversy thrown in, are usually a prime candidate for being taken straight to DRV. Always best to avoid that if possible I suppose, even If all the zOMG! drama! does add to the colour and excitement of life...

I do really need to prod myself to get more involved with closing debates though. Last summer to early winter I did quite a bit, but this tailed off as other demands on my time came to the fore. These have largely abated, but I've been too lazy to pick up the activity levels on Cfd! Perhaps I'll make Cfd the subject of my (somewhat overdue) New Year's resolution - say No to Backlogs!

Xdamr^talk 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Result of the discussion regarding renaming Category:Polish Lithuanians to Category:Lithuanian people of Polish descent

Despite the discussion here [1] closing as consensus to rename Category:Polish Lithuanians to Category:Lithuanian people of Polish descent, one of the Polish editors who opposed that decision has created Category:Poles_from_Lithuania (i.e. precisely the name which he wanted the category to be renamed as. He has since started to move articles into this category and when people object and revert his change, he simply moves the articles back again, as can be seen here [2]. His edit summaries also leave something to be desired: "armenian? this is sick, he has only armenian roots" and "this is sick, Mickiewicz was Lithuanian of Polish descent??? He was Pole lived in Gr. D. of Lithuania".

Is this behaviour appropriate for WP?Varsovian (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

CFD question--redirects OK?

Per your close here—I assume it's OK for me or anyone else to create category redirects on the old category names? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, crack on ;) --Xdamr^talk 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you are aware: [3]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And one that was my fault: [4]. This one has resulted in all the articles for Swiss Americans being bot-placed into Category:American people of Syrian descent. I will fix these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, I should have noticed these myself before putting them to CFD/W. Thanks for taking care of it. --Xdamr^talk 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Both should be resolved now. Not too much trouble. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So how does this work?

Is that it? Is there no appeal? SamEV (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have any concerns which you'd like to try and thrash out with me here, then I'm happy to respond. Otherwise, if you feel that the closure flew wildly in the face of the consensus expressed in the debate, WP:DRV is your friend.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 11:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Could you explain to me why you say there was "consensus"? The numbers for and against where [were] the same or thereabouts. SamEV (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, there was the proposal to keep both the old names and the proposed ones, which the nominator said he wouldn't oppose. You were not beholden to that apparent agreement? SamEV (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To take your second point first - the old "XXX American" categories have now been renamed to the form "American people of XXX descent". So far so good. What I understood the nominator to be in favour of was for the old "XXX American" categories to be retained as redirects, not as a parallel set of categories. If you try any of the old categories out you will see that you are pointed in the direction of the new. My understanding is that any articles mistakenly categorised under the old scheme will be automatically moved by bot to the new.

On the question of consensus, this is a matter which is judged in light of a combination of weight of numbers, wp policy, and arguments presented in the discussion. A quick and dirty count of comments seems to give a 10-5 majority in favour of the change (we might differ on precise numbers, but I think that most would conclude that the majority were in favour of the rename). That said, consensus is not a vote count; as I noted in my closure, the overwhelming policy is for there to be consistency in the naming of categories which categorise similar things. In this case the overwhelming form for people by ethnic/national origin is "XXX people of YYY descent". None of the arguments made were convincing enough to lead me to conclude that in the case of the US this established policy should be set aside.

Xdamr^talk 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"What I understood the nominator to be in favour of was for the old "XXX American" categories to be retained as redirects, not as a parallel set of categories."

G.O. was certainly for that. But I'm referring to the proposal to rename as, for example, "Category:Belgian Americans (Americans of Belgian descent)". Good Olfactory said he wouldn't oppose that.

These are the names of those who opposed the nomination to rename away from "XXX American": Alansohn, Occuli, Hong Qi Gong, Debresser ("Split all"), Maurreen, Sir Richardson ("Split all"), Hmains, Darwinek, and SamEV—a total of nine. I understand that other criteria apply, but clearly among the debaters themselves there was no runaway consensus—no consensus at all. SamEV (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Interjection about me...) I said I wouldn't oppose the "Category:Belgian Americans (Americans of Belgian descent)" format, but nor did I say I was actively supporting it. I didn't see any real support for that kind of renaming from other users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some of them felt no need to state their support given that you'd seemed to have accepted a compromise. Nor are you and I the only ones who expressed that we'd support or wouldn't oppose such an idea. Mayumashu and Hmains supported it, too. SamEV (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe some of them felt no need to state their support given that you'd seemed to have accepted a compromise." Possible, but unlikely, in my opinion. Users typically say what they support. In any case, there's clearly no consensus for that proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we seem to agree again: there was no consensus, period. SamEV (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I said there was no consensus for the proposal you made. And let's not change the discussion as we go. In the discussion you suggested it would be in the ""FOOs of BARian descent (BARian FOOs)" format, and now you're saying there was some support for the "BARian FOOs (FOOs of BARian descent)" format, which is not true. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is really only one major question that was begged by this nomination - if there is general standard for people-by-ethnicity, why shouldn't the US categories conform to it? The alternative suggestion mentioned above did not seem to gain any real traction as an alternative, and indeed would have led to the US categories continuing to operate under their own unique scheme. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that - we certainly aren't bloody-mindedly going after conformity for conformity's sake. But there is a general policy that like categories should be named alike. If there was a good reason to treat the US tree differently then that would be fine - such exceptions (eg. Category:Transportation in the United States but Category:Transport in the United Kingdom) exist throughout categorisation.

Reducing it to bare essentials, the key judgement call here was that there were no compelling reasons presented to maintain individual treatment for the US. Those that were presented, eg. WP:ENGVAR, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME, etc, were not strongly founded and as such carried less weight as I closed the debate.

Xdamr^talk 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, GO, I first proposed that order, and then expressed my preference for transposing them. Re: your "not true" claim, here's how Hmains voted: "keep the naming convention of 'Category:booian Americans' OR change to 'Category:booian Americans (Americans of booian descent)'".

More important, GO, is your position that there was consensus. Can you prove that?

Xdamr, how is WP:COMMONNAME not strongly founded? What are you saying? SamEV (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake—yes, I see that now that you switched it later. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't have supported the switch had I noticed it. Yes, consensus can be demonstrated, and I feel Xdamr has done an excellent job of explaining that both here and in the close. Consensus is not pure vote counting, and previous discussions and long-standing conventions may—and many times must—be taken into account. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Ethnic Categories

Greetings,

I'm just going to say that I'm not happy with the renaming or merging of categories such as Canadian Americans with "Americans of Canadian descent." Someone born in Canada may be a dual citizen...BOTH a Canadian citizen and an American citizen, NOT simply an "American" of "Canadian" descent but a Canadian citizen-American citizen, or Canadian-American for short.

As mentioned, many Canadians that carry dual citizenship are duly insulted that the only way to describe them now is as an "American" only, with "of Canadian descent" sounding like some kind of family tree research.

At best, there should be two categories with an easy distinction: Canadian-Americans are dual citizens.Ryoung122 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting point. You are of course quite right that it is unfortunate for a dual-citizen to be primarily identified as an American. This only goes to show the real trouble that there was with 'Canadian Americans', the fact that it could be, and indeed was, used to categorise such a diversity of meanings. I think that there should be a definite distinction between dual citizens and those with ties of ancestry. We now have a category for the latter, I can only suggest that it appropriate for Category:People with dual American-Canadian citizenship or similar to be created.

Xdamr^talk 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham CFD

I've just noticed this - I'm not sure I agree with the end result, but it's a fair enough close.

One quick note - Category:Archbishops of Birmingham, England was included along with the other "...Birmingham, England" cats. This one probably doesn't need the disambiguator in the first place - there's only one Archbishop of Birmingham, and there's no likelihood of them being confused with another - so would it be possible to rename the cat to Category:Archbishops of Birmingham rather than the (equally unnecessary) Category:Archbishops of Birmingham, West Midlands? Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm a bit of a fan of pre-emptive disambiguation. That said, I see we already have a precedent in Category:Bishops of Birmingham, so I suppose it would be best to follow this example. I'll drop the 'West Midlands' from the category name - you should see the change in the next few minutes. Many thanks, --Xdamr^talk 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xdamr, I have just spotted a typo in the renamed catagories for Birmingham. "Country Parks....." has been named "County Parks...." without the r. As your name is on the CFD, are you able to correct it? cheers. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, good catch. I've corrected my mistake in the debate closure; the category should be moved to the correct name within the next few minutes. Thanks for letting me know. --Xdamr^talk 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

cheersIdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Australian education organisations CfD

Can you please indicate how on earth you concluded that your decision here was a reasonable interpretation of consensus? I would strongly suggest moving this back, otherwise I will be initiating a DRV to overturn the result. A manifestly improper close. Orderinchaos 02:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I do vaguely recall this debate. That said, having been fairly busy at Cfd, closing a large number of nominations spread over many days worth of debates, I'd appreciate a link to the nomination in question, if you can find it. Thanks. --Xdamr^talk 03:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - it was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 1#Category:Australian_education_organisations. The consensus actually ran against the proposal and the logic of the proposal itself was soundly challenged. Orderinchaos 05:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at things. I have to say that I clearly misread the debate the first time around - on a second look I see absolutely no consensus for anything. I do see some merit in this category conforming with the other contents of Category:Educational organizations by country. In this case I propose to rv the rename, and I will raise a new Cfd nomination for this purpose. Good enough?

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 13:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that seems reasonable to me. Orderinchaos 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake

• How does this work? Three people say delete, four people say keep; and yet "The result of the discussion was: Delete." Is this the same kind of result as when Chelsea score 4 goals, Arsenal score 3, but Arsenal win the match? No one seriously challenged the logic of many of the arguments for keep. This is the kind of thing that makes this encyclopedia seriously flawed and drives serious contributors away from such an Alice la-la land. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with exactly the same thing in the section above you, except it was 2-1 oppose in that case. (And I'd even note that I was one of those who voted to delete in this one - but can accept consensus didn't go my way there.) Orderinchaos 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote count. Concerns were raised, even by those who tended to support, as to the vagueness of the inclusion criteria and doubts about the category's longevity. Those who were in favour of keeping were either: a) in favour of keeping it as a short-term measure, in order to act as an administrative container as coverage of the earthquake is developed, or b) content with the category as-was, "affected by" being a self-evidently common sense term.

My reading of the arguments led me to conclude that there was significant and well-founded argument against its continued existence and that, generally speaking, support for retention was lukewarm and for the short term. In those circumstances I opted to delete.

Xdamr^talk 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the case in the previous section (Australian education organisations), where arguments were raised in opposition which were not satisfactorily addressed, and no substantial arguments were raised in support of the proposal? The result came as a genuine surprise to me, and it shouldn't. When I'm losing an argument, it's usually obvious and I take it on the chin as a case of "oh well". This wasn't one such time. At the moment it's looking like your personal opinion vs consensus (a core policy). And even though I agreed with your decision on the Chile category in the sense that I wanted it deleted, "no consensus, default keep for now" was a more correct reading of the result IMO. I (as an admin of 3 years standing) certainly don't presently have faith in you as a closing admin in any further CfDs in which I choose to involve myself, and would request that while significant questions exist about your judgment, you desist from closing further ones in violation of the opinions expressed by participants. Orderinchaos 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, the "Battles..." close from earlier today is also highly questionable - no consensus had emerged and discussion appeared to be continuing - "Relist" would probably have been the appropriate solution to that one, and definitely some sort of notification to MILHIST and/or WP NZ who would have had some useful feedback. Orderinchaos 13:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(I was going to brush this off, but I may as well respond...) I hope that you would agree that your concerns over the Australian category were addressed, acted upon, and that you were not brushed off or ignored? That being the case I do not quite understand your need to engage in bad faith commentary here and elsewhere before you had given me the opportunity to respond to your concerns. That you immediately, on the basis of one close, identify that "...significant questions exist about [my] judgement" strikes me as being a vaguely intemperate and heated response. I am perfectly content for any closure of mine to be taken to DRV at any time - if you have any concerns with any of the debates which I close today, closed yesterday, or will close tomorrow, you are more than free (and I would indeed encourage you) to take them for review.

Xdamr^talk 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[Deleted earlier bit as an edit clash] As OIC says, "no consensus, default keep for now" was a more correct reading of the result IMO. Would you please put the category back, before it is taken further. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Orderinchaos was not the closing admin. I am happy to address any concerns which you have about the discussion and its closure, but I should tell you that it is unlikely that I will simply substitute my reading of the debate for his for no other reason than it is demanded of me. In these circumstances I would suggest that your best option is to go to DRV. I am more than happy to have any closure of mine scrutinised there.

Xdamr^talk 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm rather busy and I can't be bothered to waste any more time on this, learning what DRV is and filling in geeky forms, so I'll let it rest. Best of luck with Smuts, Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I filed one here. Orderinchaos 15:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My concerns were eventually addressed, yes, and I appreciate that. My comments were more addressed to an overall picture - basically what I'd say is it's alright to have an opinion but it's a different matter entirely to impose it at will. I saw a number of earlier questions about different closes on your talk page, another soon followed mine and I looked at a few others at random and found issues. They all basically followed a pattern of ignoring consensus (or assuming one where clearly none existed), and imposing one's own judgement/opinion. WP:CON is non-negotiable, even if it hasn't been the norm at CfD for a long time - it's especially incumbent upon closers to respect it as the faith of the project rests upon closers doing the right thing. When they don't, it's up to the *rest* of the project to make those individuals answerable for their actions. Orderinchaos 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your identification of a long pattern of disregarding consensus. Setting aside your case, which I conceded was a mistaken close (and which I addressed as soon as our difference in time-zones would allow), you will have noted that in vast majority of the cases where my closure was questioned, this resulted from discussions which were both substantial and controversial. In these circumstances there are always likely to be questions asked of the closer. I would point out that none of these debates, large-scale and with considerable community participation, were ever taken to DRV, much less overturned. Consensus is a balance between voting, the strength of arguments presented on the day, and wider community policy - those who privilege one of these three elements above the others will often find cause to be dissatisfied, but this does not mean that there has been a violation of consensus.

Xdamr^talk 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What about this one? There was no meaningful participation at all and there was no principle of policy involved, it should have been relisted. This one resulted in utterly silly names with two opposes, one support and one alternative proposal. I can't find the other ones I looked at this morning from earlier on. Orderinchaos 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The NZ one was a simple case of renaming a category to be consistent with its peers, namely the contents of Category:Battles and operations of World War II by country. Are you seriously suggesting that the addition of 'and operations' is that significant an issue? There were no objections, simply some meandering debate which in no way impacted upon the presence or not of 'and operations'.

As for the other debate, you don't like it because you think the resulting name was silly? 'XYZ films' is the convention of the category. Community consensus is that categories in the same category tree should be named according to the conventions of that tree (cf, for example, the speedy rename criteria). If you don't like the result then raise a group nomination to revise the naming scheme as I suggested in my closure. For pity's sake don't just carp about it...

Xdamr^talk 15:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you're being unreasonable about the films one, I shall DRV that one also. That was as clear an example of wrong as the Australian one. I am not "carping" about anything - I'm upset that a fellow admin respects his peers so little that he has no wish to follow consensus and instead imposes his own opinion all over CfD, and I certainly won't regard a close from you in future as the final word on anything as you don't seem to actually read the cases and approach them with pre-determined conclusions. This is unacceptable behaviour and paints Wikipedia in a bad light for those who don't normally deal with process and deal more with content, as you can see from the comments made by people who are good-faith editors around the place. Orderinchaos 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wider community consensus is that categories within a category tree should conform to the standards of that tree. This principle has been held to be so uncontroversial and self-evidently worthwhile that it is has been turned into a speedy rename criterion. Either way, I said I was happy for you to bring any closure of mine for review, and I meant it. So best of luck, knock yourself out...

Xdamr^talk 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Answer me this then - why bother having CfD if the results are known in advance from "wider community consensus" and unanimous opposition can be cast aside or ignored? Orderinchaos 15:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This was exactly the mindset I was concerned with when I challenged the person who said "We can delete it now, or we can delete it in 4 months from now" in the Chile case, calling him/her "dictatorial". He/she said it was a prediction, but, as I said at the time, it was a pretty strange way to frame a prediction. I am just an ordinary Joe here – I just add content – but as you suggest, OIC, people like me don't like being pushed around as if our status and contributions count for nothing. Ericoides (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) We'll stick with the films category as an example then. Our starting assumptions:

• Wider community consensus is that categories within a category tree should conform to the standards of that tree.
• The prevailing consensus has been that sub categories of Category:Films_by_studio should follow the form 'XYZ films'.
• Category:London Films films and Category:CBS Films films are slightly silly.

In this situation then, with a Cfd addressing these 2 categories out of 98 similar, do we:

1. Close as no consensus, as the votes are roughly balanced and ignore the overwhelming wider consensus for Category:Films_by_studio,
2. Close as keep, as Category:London Films films is a slightly silly name and ignore the overwhelming wider consensus for Category:Films_by_studio,
3. Close as a rename, changing all the other categories in Category:Films_by_studio to the same form as the two categories nominated,
4. Close as a rename, as the standard naming form for the tree is firmly established, but leave a note in the closure to the effect that a group rename for the wider tree should be something of a priority?

Nos. 1 & 2 break wider consensus. No. 3 is inappropriate given lack of publicity and the small scale of the debate. No. 4 keeps consistency with the tree, while at the same time not preventing or inhibiting a nomination to adopt a more 'correct' form in the future.

The fact is that for these sort of renames, the results are typically 'known in advance'. This sort of thing ranks as uncontroversial cleanup. It is for this reason that these sort of renames are covered by speedy criterion WP:CSD#C2C - 9 times out of 10 they are speedily renamed after 48h and are only rarely (as in this case) nominated for a full Cfd.

Xdamr^talk 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think that a lack of support at CfD would suggest there was maybe a problem with the "wider consensus". In this case 2 would be appropriate, as would a 5th option you missed - relist, and find a suitable name for the thing, as consensus appeared to be looking at "rename, but not *this*". Once it goes to CfD, it is not uncontroversial cleanup, especially when there are clear opposes - that is probably the strangest thing I've heard all month. There's also the fact that consensus can change - for example, with the supposedly "settled" example of settlements, we're seeing that the "consensus" in favour of that doesn't actually exist outside the closed group, and some of us are working together to try and find a better solution which works for everybody. (The settlements one, as well as "universities and colleges", are the two I consistently hear outside Wikipedia as evidence we are a joke, and as a note of frustration from editors around the world at our clear ignorance of reality.) We're not automatons here, we're supposed to be good faith humans trying to build a decent resource, and robotic bad faith obstructions do nothing to maintain or increase anyone's confidence in the process - it's the *general* view in the community that CfD is so broken that it shouldn't be bothered with at all, and is a key reason why participation is so low. Admins with your mindset of compliance with the group mentality in there disgrace the participatory aims which are a cornerstone of this project. Orderinchaos 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are bothered by categorisation of settlements and universities then nominate them for change - Cfd is just the process that implements the community view, it is not concerned with directly administering categories.

You speak of being "good faith humans", perhaps you ought to think strongly as to whether you put this ethos into practice. Before I had a chance to consider your objection to the Australian rename above, you were making decidedly bad-faith assumptions here and on other pages. This is something which you have continued even as I have attempted to engage with you during the course of today. I have seen little evidence of constructive engagement in return little except ad hominem suggestions of roboticism and bad faith.

Process on wikipedia reflects those who participate and shape it. This applies to everything, from Arbcom down. If you think something is 'broken' then it is more than open for you to positively involve yourself in the process rather than heckling from the touch-line. You appear to have a deep seated grievance with Cfd - there's nothing that I can do to help you with that I'm afraid. I can only suggest that you raise an Rfc for wider participation if you feel that the Cfd process is wildly at variance with community norms.

Xdamr^talk 17:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy rename error

Hi Xdamr

Something went wrong in this edit of yours to WP:CFD/W. One rename got pasted into the middle of another.

AFAICS from a quick peek, everything worked out OK, but you may want to check. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - everything looks fine (dodged a bullet there I think!). --Xdamr^talk 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Let the pummelling into compliance begin .... I have sent you an email with some info that you may find reassuring at the current time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Convinced? I am. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. My experience + your experience + what I've seen by digging around = a distressingly compelling picture. May you live in interesting times... --Xdamr^talk 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

Back in August 2009 you closed Category:Captives held in "the dark prison" as delete. Your concluding statement said: "Category based on unverified speculation and allegation, aside from the fact that the name is as opaque as mud".

I just became aware of this nomination recently -- the nominator didn't offer me a good faith heads-up of the nomination.

The nominator asserted that the articles in this category had been placed there without valid references to back them up. The nominator acknowledged that they had removed all the articles from this category, because, in their judgment, there were no valid references to substantiate their placement in the article.

From your concluding statement, it seems you took their assertion that the placement of articles within this category was unsubstantiated at face value.

Unfortunately their assertion was simply incorrect:

diff	captive	nominator's edit summary	actual reference
[5]	Musab Omar Ali Al Mudwani	"(unreferenced)".	Unlike al-Madhwani, and five other Yemenis seized after the firefight, who were held in the “Dark Prison” for up to six weeks, before they were flown to Guantánamo
[6]	Bisher Amin Khalil al-Rawi	"(→External links)"	For two weeks, al-Rawi was kept shackled in complete isolation and darkness at the secret CIA facility known as the “Dark Prison.”

I think the process through which this category was deleted was problematic, for several reasons.

First, our decisions are supposed to be made openly and transparently. This is one reason why nominator should inform the creator/uploader when they make a nomination. I don't think nominations for deletion should succeed simply because the nominator, by accident or design, got them nominated, discussed and decided without input from those who disagree with them.

Second, our nominator was mistaken to assert that the articles in the category had been placed there without any justification. I think it was a mistake for them to depopulate the category, prior to nominating it for deletion. If they were going to nominate it for deletion I think they should have left it populated, and let those participating in the discussion make up their own mind as to whether the articles populating the category really belonged. I think that if they first removed articles fromt the category, and only then decided to nominate it for deletion, they should have gone back and self-reverted their removal of the category from the articles, so those weighing in could make their own decision as to whether they belonged in the category. It is a weakness of categories that they have no history mechanism. It would be way too difficult for those participating in the discussion to figure out which articles the nominator had removed.

Third, no offense, but you concluding statement said: "the name is as opaque as mud". Does this refer to "the dark prison" part of the category name? No doubt this prison has an official name -- one that is classified. Hence, in public, it is referred to by this nickname. Other category names would have been possible. But I am concerned that our reliance on the prison's nickname, rather than its official name, appears to have been one of the justifications you relied on in your conclusion.

So, if you agree that there deletion process was problematic, it is my understanding that it is within your authority to simply restore it. It is my understanding that it is within your authority to restore it, and initiate a new deletion discussion, but one where all interested parties have an opportunity to weigh in. Finally, it is my understanding that it is within your authority to tell me something like: "I've read your concerns. I don't agree to restoring the category for the following reason(s)... Your option(s) now are..."

Have I got that right?

Thanks in advance. Geo Swan (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion

In regards to this, I think that the deletion was done rather prematurely. There was no consensus and under normal conditions it would be re-listed. -Reconsider! 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)