-
Category:Second wranglers (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
-
Category:Senior wranglers (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
article|
XfD|
restore)
My objections (Senior wrangler discussion) are:
- Otto's rationale is a logical howler ('
Valedictorian' is not usually defining so it is never defining), and all the 'deleters' followed like sheep. Accordingly no case had been made for 'delete'.
- BlackFalcon relisted when there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus.
- Having contributed at some length to the 'delete' argument, such as it was, influencing the last 2 contributors, BlackFalcon should not have closed the discussion.
- As the cfd opened on 27 Jan, and the last comment was on 24 Feb, 19 days after relisting, it is clear that the cfd was thought to be 'finely balanced' otherwise it would have been closed earlier. Such cfds should be closed as no consensus rather than waiting for a random 'casting vote' long after everyone else has stopped watching.
- The deletion of
Category:Second wranglers was even worse; the delete argument conceded the battle early on and descended into irrelevant skirmishes. Again, it was open for 3 weeks, evidence enough that a 'delete' consensus was difficult to perceive.
- There should a warning on the cfd notice - think carefully before suggesting a trivial rename as there are piranhas out there.
(As to the quibble that 'Category:Senior wranglers' should have been taken to DRV while the second wrangler category was being cfd'd, the counter-argument is that BlackFalcon should have allowed say 24 hours rather than 1 minute between closing the one and opening the other, to see if a DRV was opened (it would have been). It is irritating to have to go through the same arguments twice simultaneously, or indeed twice consecutively. Or thrice, not to mention last year. I can see the logic of Bencherlite's closure but it seems unduly bureaucratic.)
Occuli (
talk)
02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore both: there is clear consensus in the proceedings on Second Wrangler to keep that one, and to restore the Senior Wrangler category. I would also have given less weight to the arguments to delete Senior Wrangler, since they do not appear to proceed from knowledge of the history of nineteenth-century mathematics.
Septentrionalis
PMAnderson
03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Baa-aaa-aaa - maybe it's just the ungulate in me but I see no procedural errors in either CFD that warrant overturning either of them. This rather bitchily-written DRV comes off like the sourest of grapes and an attempt to make it all about the people involved and not the arguments. "Important" is not and never has been the standard for categorization and if the keepers couldn't make the case, too bad. They wanted to use the second CFD to try to make the case for the first CFD and it didn't work. Too bad they'll probably force the reversal through here.
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Must there be procedural errors in order to warrant overturning? I think a perfectly valid deletion after the usual AfD (and I presume also CfD) with no procedural errors can be validly overturned. The grounds could be things that were not considered the first time. To say otherwise would be to claim infallibility. Consider all those people who hang around AfD discussions to urge deletion of articles whose content they are unwilling to know and to tell people with expertise in the topic to submit in meek and servile fashion. Are they infallible?
Michael Hardy (
talk)
04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- No, procedural error is not required.
DRV is also appropriate when "...significant new information has come to light since a deletion...." That hardly seems to have happened in the three hours between the close of the 2nd wranglers CFD and this DRV, unless calling people stupid sheep is significant new information. DRV is not to be used just because one disagrees with the outcome of the XfD, which appears to be the case here since the DRV appears based on nothing more than the rhetorical equivalent of "Nuh-uh!"
Otto4711 (
talk)
04:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Sour grapes? The clearest possible consensus at the Second wranglers CfD was for retention. Consensus can change and it did. It is a clever move by the closing admin to ignore the clear consensus on the issue at the Second wranglers CfD and concoct an excuse that the prior CfD should have gone to DRV first, therefore providing an utterly out of process excuse to close the newer CfD as delete. Apparently process means nothing when one agrees with the outcome.
Alansohn (
talk)
01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ouch. I'm not impressed by an accusation (without any evidence) that I "agreed with the outcome" and so closed it as delete. As I noted below, I closed the 2008 discussion as "keep". Please rethink your remarks.
Bencherlite
Talk
11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I don't believe that the decision was "concocted" in this case, which would imply that the result was manufactured to meet a desired result. The issue here is a basic and fundamental misapplication of Wikipedia policy, applied in apparent good faith, in assuming that the result of a prior case requires mandatory action in any and all future cases, unless the original deletion is explicitly overturned by a DRV that addresses the specific original case. A closing administrator had three basic options: 1) To treat the prior case of Senior Wrangler as controlling and delete in the Second Wrangler case, disregarding any contrary consensus; 2) treat the newer case as controlling and respect the consensus established at Second Wrangler as the most current, overturning the prior decision at Senior Wrangler; or 3) to decide the Second Wrangler case on its own merit, leaving the seemingly inconsistent result that Senior Wrangler was deleted unchanged. A review of Wikipedia policy shows that the clear consensus established at the Second Wrangler case is the only relevant matter here, leaving options 2 and 3 the only viable ones under policy, while option 1, chosen by the closing admin, is in clear contradiction to policy. Wikipedia does not operate on a precedent-based system. While prior cases may influence newer ones, the result of any prior consensus has no binding value whatsoever in any future situation. In fact,
Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia official policy on such matters, mandates that "Consensus Can Change", stating that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." In this case, consensus changed in the clearest possible manner. Even if the Senior Wranglers case was decided correctly -- and it was not -- there is no obligation to delete Second Wranglers simply because of the incorrect assumption that the prior precedent is binding, even for the sake of "consistency". That an article for Company A is deleted places no binding precedent to delete articles for all all other companies, or for articles for all smaller companies, or articles for companies in the same industry as Company A or even for smaller companies in the same field as Company A; Each case must be decided on its own merits, as long as all other policy requirements are met, as they are here. An approach that demanded that all similar cases are automatically driven by prior cases not only establishes a firm roadblock to improvements to Wikipedia, it encourages an approach to game the system to shoehorn all cases into the neat "binding precedents" that are already being used at CfD to stifle change. "Concocting" a decision would imply that this one case was decided incorrectly on an arbitrary basis and I do not believe that anything was concocted here. The issue of misinterpretation of policy here, ignoring clear consensus here for retention of Second Wranglers and insisting that prior precedent is binding when no such policy exists, is one that could well be misapplied elsewhere by assuming it in good faith to be Wikipedia policy despite clear evidence to the contrary written directly into
Wikipedia:Consensus. This out of precess decision needs to be overturned here to ensure that it is not misapplied elsewhere.
Alansohn (
talk)
12:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn These were the highest possible honours for Cambridge undergraduates in mathematics; consequently, the highest honours in mathematical sciences in the world altogether in the period. I am not for the moment arguing that everyone who attained these ranks were notable, though I would be prepared to do so for senior wrangler. But certainly for those who did attain these rank, and have articles in Wikipedia (which is about 2/3 of the senior wranglers and 1/3 of the 2nd's), it is a distinctive specification of their of significance and appropriate for a Wikipedia category. The argument about CfD is irrelevant--for a category, there is not other method of review of seeing whether consensus has changed. We must have a way or reviewing any decision--it's a basic meta-principle of orderly procedure. As for arguments specifying animal noises as proposed decisions, there's nothing rational to say-- or that needs to be said. :)
DGG (
talk)
03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The function of DRV is to determine whether the XfD close was technically correct or to offer up new information that weighs on whether circumstances have changed. Your comment does neither. DRV is not CFD round 2.
Otto4711 (
talk)
04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both Not much substantive remains to be said. To repeat: this was a "most notable award" in the 19th century - much more notable than Rhodes Scholar, say, more like being Miss America, and consensus is that these are appropriate for categories. Procedurally, a deletion consensus was never apparent, based in policy or practice, or logical, especially once this fact was established. As noted Black Falcon's close was defective in other ways. Bencherlite's closure was wrong, based on a othercrapnowdoesn'texist idea, rather than the specific arguments on that page about that category, which showed a clear preponderance of keeps - about 10-6. Finally, I'm glad I edit conflicted with DGG, because his point about the necessity of methods to review decisions is well taken.
John Z (
talk)
04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Of course there should be review mechanisms, and of course there are, and the mechanisms and circumstances for that review are
spelled out clearly. "I disagree with the outcome" or "the people who support the decision are sheep" do not fall under those circumstances.
Otto4711 (
talk)
04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- How then do we see if consensus has changed for a category?
DGG (
talk)
14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Talk about beating a horse (or ungulate, in this case) into submission: this whole saga has been going on for nearly two full months now—let's try to make it an three with this discussion! Oh, can the wrangler categories ever rest in peace? Seriously though, the merits of deletion vs. keeping have been debated ad nauseum in both CfDs. The entire reason that, as
User:Occuli points out, that the second discussion was marred with some petty sub-squabbles was in all likelihood because everything that could be said had pretty much been said.
User:Michael Hardy says that a valid reason to overturn a CfD could be the illumination of "things that were not considered the first time." That may be true, but I highly doubt anyone can point to any surprising "new information" that has now come to light that was not discussed in the CfDs. For that reason, we are pretty much stuck with questioning whether there are procedural errors that would warrant overturning or (please, no) relisting. The two closers are not infallible, but they both appear to have made good-faith efforts to honestly make a decision based on the discussion and arguments that were before them. I personally agree with the result of the decision, but regardless of which side they had come down on, I cannot fault the closers' actions procedurally in these cases.
User:Occuli's presumption that "it is clear that the cfd was thought to be 'finely balanced' otherwise it would have been closed earlier" is a bit of a non-starter: it's more likely that it stayed open for so long largely because the more regular users who typically close CfD discussions had all participated in the discussion!
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It stayed open so long because the CfD process is not much visited except by specialists, and the supporters may have neglected to canvass.
DGG (
talk)
14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds like another less-than-likely theory. There's a far simpler possible reason which, without any evidence that would lead us elsewhere, should
probably be accepted.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I have no particular opinion either way, but I dispute your claim that the merits were debated at all, much less "ad nauseam". Only one serious argument for deletion was advanced in the CFD for
Category:Senior Wranglers, namely that the category was equivalent to "valedictorians"; this was not properly rebutted. One or two people advanced the claim that Senior Wrangler is a "defining characteristic"; this was not rebutted either. So there was not a debate in any meaningful sense. For
Category:Second Wranglers, the "debate" was even more of a travesty. This time arguments for keeping the category were advanced, but the opponents of the category repeatedly refused to engage them, relying instead of arguments from consistency with the previous deletion. —
Dominus (
talk)
14:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- What you see is typically what passes for "debate" at CfD: users setting out their opinions. There doesn't necessarily have to be vigorous back-and-forth between users for the issues to be pretty much exhausted. In my opinion, they were here.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Your own position on this is inconsistent. The paramount importance and significance of the Senior Wrangler was brought up in the CFD of
Category:Senior Wranglers. The claim of importance was never answered, and was disregarded by the closing admin not because it was false, not because it was irrelevant, but because "the claim is unfortunately unattributed". No attempt was made, it seems, to judge the matter on its actual merits. In the following CFD for
Category:Second Wranglers, the matter was argued more thoroughly, with extensive documentation, but several contributors to the discussion again disregarded this argument and its overwhelming evidence, this time arguing "that this is not the appropriate format for rehashing the senior discussion", "the place to contest the closing of the previous discussion is DRV, not here". You yourself said "I'm unsure why users are re-arguing the senior wrangler issue here. That seems to be an issue for WP:DRV, as has been repeatedly pointed out." Now the issue is being brought up at DRV, as you said it should, and you claim that no "'new information' ... has now come to light that was not discussed in the CfDs." This argument is circular. The relevant facts were disregarded in the first CFV; they were argued extensively in the second CRV but you said they should be brought up in DRV instead; now here it is in DRV and you are disregarding them because they are not "new information" and "the issues were pretty much exhausted". This is a circular argument. However well you meant your remarks, they amount to moving the goalposts. The facts are unarguable that the Senior Wrangler award was of major importance at the time, and this has been extensively documented. These facts have been disregarded throughout this process by the opponents of the category, using first one and then another procedural quibble that never engaged the substance of the issue. Your own claim that this is "beating a dead horse" is another circular argument of this type. You claimed in the second CFD that the arguments about the importance of Senior Wrangler should be postponed to DRV; now that it is in DRV, you say proponents are "beating a dead horse", implying that the argument was over in the CFD and is being inappropriately prolonged. When I say that the matter hasn't been debated, that's what I mean: the opponents of the category, including yourself, have persistently refused to engage the matter. —
Dominus (
talk)
14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It's not circular, because my advice was disregarded, and the issue was presented there. My comment was an after-the-fact observation—by then, it was too late. Trust me, the horse is dead; i.e., everyone (if they have read the entirety of all discussions) are aware of the arguments that you assume are being ignored.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I didn't say people had not read the arguments; I said they ignored them. This is not an "assumption": The admin who closed the second DRV (Bencherlite) has said as much. —
Dominus (
talk)
06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- So we repeat ourselves over and over and over again in the hope of forcing a user to "not ignore" them, even though there's no reliable way to assess how much someone "ignored" an argument? If you want to do that--knock yourself out--but don't complain when others make observations about unnecessary repetition.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. I agree with DGG. I think the closure was in good faith, but the arguments for deletion were all thin and seem to have no knowledge of the significance of the wrangler grade. Being a wrangler was massively notable and it is appropriate that they should have categories. There was no real consensus based on building an encyclopedia to delete these. --
Bduke
(Discussion)
05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both. In line with the clear balance of opinion at the
Cfd on Second wranglers.
Jheald (
talk)
07:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. As was made clear in the Afd for Second Wranglers, if not perhaps at Senior Wranglers, this was one of the most senior academic prizes in mathematics during the nineteenth century. Those advocating deletion on "valedictorian" grounds have clearly failed to understand this, and although both Cfds were closed in good faith, they were done so on a mistaken assumption and should be reversed. It doesn't matter how long this takes, as long as the error is eventually reversed, and accusations that people are "beating a dead horse" are certainly not in the spirit of
WP:AGF.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- What you said was that we weren't able to understand a basic argument. Sure sounds like an oh-so-polite way of calling people stupid to me. Could it possibly be that we did understand it but we just think you're wrong?
Otto4711 (
talk)
10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You are still failing to AGF, but thats not my problem. My problem is that so far no one has successfully explained why these categories should be deleted: both the arguments for endorse above are based on technicalities relating to previous Cfds, which carry no weight in this DRV. Other reasons for deletion are that 1) the subject works better as a list, which is irrelevant to the discussion, because lists and categories are designed to work in tandem and these categories are an ideal way of associating the award with the people who won it, and 2) this is just a list of "valedictorians", which is simply untrue. The position of Senior Wrangler was a major academic prize during the nineteenth century, and many if not most of its recipients went on to become notable, or even famous, mathematicians. Please explain what it is that you don't understand, or don't agree with, in this summary.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Jackyd, you quoted me on the "beating a dead horse" comment and then suggested that this was contrary to the spirit of AGF. Well, apparently you missed the fact that this comment preceded my comment that began, "Seriously though". In other words, the stuff that preceded that was said in a spirit of jest. I would suggest that in light of the context of my comments, an assumption that the comment in question was a serious criticism of others is not an example of assuming good faith. So you may want to examine your own assumptions before repeatedly criticising others'.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I admit, it was not obvious to me that you were joking, but I withdraw my comment in your case if it causes offence. I do maintain however that Otto4711 was certainly not adhering to AGF, both in his opening comment and in his subsequent replies to me. I still await a reasoned response to my summary of the issues at stake.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comments from second closer For what it's worth, I closed the 2008 discussion of the main category as "keep" and didn't participate in the 2009 discussions, as I'm much less active at CFD than I used to be. Yes, the second wranglers category was open for about 3 weeks longer than it should have been, but not because the decision was difficult (if the main category is deleted, the runners-up category has to go too - not based on some "othercrap" argument, which applies to articles, but because categories ought to be consistent) but because it seems to me that most of the few people who tend to close CFD discussions had participated! So I endorse my closure of the second category. As for the main category, I abstain in the circumstances.
Bencherlite
Talk
07:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn We need the category and not just the list because it's the appropriate way of annotating biography articles in the article itself.
Then consider how we can rework current policy so that category-related deletions are a bit more visible. We seem to have a regular problem where article deletions are seen by those concerned, but categories all too often slip through.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse both, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the problems that the DRV nominator does. Nothing wrong with either close. --
Kbdank71
10:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both so as to respect Keep consensus on Second Wranglers CFD. Closing admin's argument that it would be illogical to keep Second Wranglers category while deleting Senior Wranglers category was correct, but should have been applied in the opposite direction. Closing admin seemed to feel this could only be achieved by a DRV - so here we are.
Gandalf61 (
talk)
11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both: It's pretty clear to me that the closing admin closed "Senior Wrangler" without consensus, so I'd overturn that decision, and then overturn the second wrangler decision since it was based on the first. Also: Comment: one editor's reasoning for deletion of Senior Wrangler was that in the editor's personal opinion being the top of the school, or being from any school isn't defining. This isn't about anyone's opinion of whether valediction in general is important, it is about whether valediction from Cambridge in math in the 19th century was important to the people then, which it clearly was.
RobHar (
talk)
15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both. The contribution of Black Falcon to the discussion makes it inappropriate for him to have closed the discussion: despite being a comment rather than a !vote, it was a long comment that made a significant difference to subsequent !votes. And that CfD seems more clearly to have been a non-consensus; there was no clear argument from the closer (as sometimes happens on split decisions such as this) showing that one side's opinions had policy behind them while the others are just ILIKEIT. There is also a second procedural reason to overturn: the original CfD was about a simple rename, and many participants may not have taken it seriously because of that; it was only later in the CfD that it became a discussion about deletion. Since the second decision followed from the first rather than being in any way independent (it would have been illogical to keep the second wranglers and delete the firsts) it should be overturned as well. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- PS Probably this belongs in the inevitable relist rather than here, but documents such as
this one (a history of 18th-century English Utilitarians written in 1900) makes plain that, at that time, these titles were considered defining: everyone for whom it is possible is introduced as "So and so, senior wrangler" or "So and so, second wrangler" or even "So and so, ninth wrangler". It's not our task to determine whether these titles should be defining, but merely whether they actually were. That is, in response to Carlossuarez46 below: it may well be that the usage of the time was unfairly biased in favor of just one school, but we should report accurately and neutrally on that rather than trying to change it post facto. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse both this is not CFD round 2, there was nothing wrong in the process. Having valedictory categories for just one school is not the NPOV we strive for, and that it is a first-world school is just the
WP:BIAS of WP, now overcome by the deletions.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both CfD is a rather sorry process, and these two CfDs ably demonstrate a fundamental disrespect for the purpose of categories, which is to allow readers to navigate across similar articles, not to impose persoanl biases. The arguments for retention provide clear and credible justifications for retention. By contrast, many of the weakest arguments come from admins who should know far better, such as the claim that "The list in this case is more useful. The list contains every person who, well, came in second. The category does not, therefore it is less useful", which directly contradicts the
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline which states that "these methods should not [emphasis in original] be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this DRV should shed some much needed light on a dysfunctional process that seems far more determined to impose arbitrary and irrational "rules" rather than to improve navigation using categories. As clear arguments for retention were ignored, and as both should have been closed as "keep" or at worst "no consensus", deletion for both should be overturned.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Since you chose to quote me, I'll respond. I see you are (again) just regurgitating from the CLN guideline instead of coming up with your own reason to overturn. Yes, the category and the list can coexist, but in this particular case, there is no reason for them to. Perhaps you could respond to the rest of what I brought up, which is how the
list has 150 years of wranglers, whereas the category for second wranglers had 26 articles. Don't know what definition of "useful" you are using, but in my book, the category is indeed less useful than the list. --
Kbdank71
19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Not only don't I care that you find the category "less useful" than the list, the relevant Wikipedia guideline insists that your argument is erroneous. The reason for them to co-exist is that those who prefer navigating using categories may have that option, even if your own personal biases insist that they not be given that choice. Will you respond to the fact that the overwhelming consensus at CfD was to keep? Taking a look at the most recent CfD might help you with your inability to see the same problems that the nominator and I clearly see.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- This has nothing to do with my biases. A 26 article category vs a 150 member list. Are you so reliant on "because the guideline says so" that you can't see the flaws in your own argument? --
Kbdank71
20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see any flaw, because I always thought following policy was a good thing, as these policies are created to help prevent admins from inserting their arbitrary biases. Are you actually insisting that any category with fewer entries than a corresponding list must be deleted? Can you even point to any Wikipedia policy that might support this nonsense? Do you see the flaw in your own argument?
Alansohn (
talk)
15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- See, here you go again. My argument for this category does not translate to "every category", no matter how many times you try to twist it. Can you point to an actual policy? Because not only is CLN a guideline that states "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception", and also says "neither requires nor forbids" the use of categories and lists. So no, I don't see a flaw in my argument at all, but yours is on very shaky ground. --
Kbdank71
15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment from first closer – Since a portion of this DRV essentially repeats claims expressed
here, to which I replied but received no reply in turn, I am forced to repeat parts of my comment from there:
- The discussion for Category:Senior Wranglers stopped being just a renaming discussion when the first user suggested deletion. Once a category is nominated at WP:CFD, the course of the discussion rather than the initial nomination determines what will be done with it. By the way, the same is true of all deletion discussion processes. Demanding that discussion be limited only to the scope of the nomination (I'm not saying that this is suggested by the nomination, but it seems to be a target of complaint) is counterproductive process-obsession.
- My participation in the first discussion was limited to relisting the discussion and posting what was intended to be my closing rationale (I relisted it purely on procedure due to the fact that both categories were not tagged at the time), so as to hopefully stimulate additional discussion. It is a mistake to equate evaluation of the merits of the arguments in preparation for a close with the actual making of an argument one way or the other.
- The discussion was open for more than one month, including 23 days after the first relisting. There was ample opportunity to comment but virtually no response to the arguments for deletion.
- Finally, in response to the nom's assertion that I should have allowed time to see whether my close would have been taken to DRV: in retrospect, I should have waited. However, in my defense, none of those advocating to keep the category had posted a single comment in over three weeks, and there was little reason for me to think that an extra day would make a difference. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Relist there is an argument that few people were aware of the cfd, which is often the case. A better discussion may be had in a second cfd. My personal preference is for the categories to stay deleted,
List of Wranglers... does a fine job and I see no pressing need for a category, most mathematical awards do not have categories which I see as a good thing. --
Salix (
talk):
20:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Endorse - I don't see procedural error, nor "new information" coming to light. The list should be fine in this case, as it allows for referencing to illustrate "definingness" (what a word) for each and every member, the lack of ability to annotate each member being a weak point in categorisation, per
WP:CAT (and
WP:CLS). -
jc37
21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- ?There was a great deal of new information presented in the second wrangler debate. Considering the way that was closed, for consistency and disregarding that information, disallowing that new information here amounts to an Alice-In-Wonderland "review" process.
John Z (
talk)
21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
"Great deal"? Not that I see. Please feel free to point out what you think I may be missing, for disucssion. -
jc37
22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Dominus's, Occuli's, C S's and my posts there have a lot of quotes and URLs. Black Falcon's "key question" in the first wrangler CfD was exactly to the point. : "What significance does graduating as Senior Wrangler have outside of the context of mathematics at the University of Cambridge? In other words, what factors make the status of 'Senior Wrangler' significantly different from that of 'valedictorian'? The main article claims that "[t]he examination was the most important in England at the time, and the results were given great publicity", but the claim is unfortunately unattributed." The second wrangler discussion, cf the posts alluded above, supported the claims, showing that it was much more significant than "valedictorian" - beating it to death, with nobody opposing, explicitly saying no, this was not a "most notable award" - because there are plenty of RS's out there that imply it was, and none that say it wasn't. There were people who built their whole lives around being and having been Senior Wrangler. It gave one entry to practically any profession. It had international publicity. What other valedictorian category can that be said about?
John Z (
talk)
23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Well first, categorisation of anything on Wikipedia is subjective. Categorisation is merely one form of navigational ability that we provide our readership. It isn't necessary, and no specific article, and no specific topic, "deserves" categorisation.
And there are people who build their whole lives around being
Napoleon. And being computer literate these days is an entry to nearly any choice of profession, and I doubt that we'd start categorising individuals based upon their proficiency with computers. So that particular argument doesn't exactly sway me : )
- No, being computer literate is not an entry to any choice of profession, that's not what the ref I cited meant. It's more like being literate back then. Being Senior Wrangler was infinitely more.
John Z (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Also, I think you're confusing something about the phrase "comes to light". No new information (presumably) has come to light between the closure of the CfD and this DRV. Was there more information on the topic in the second CfD compared to the first one. Yes. Did it help in establishing how these didn't go contrary to
WP:OC#AWARD (and the related discussion at WT:OC)? Not that I saw.
- I am not confused; I was criticizing the interaction of such arguments and closings as amounting to an absurd procedure. As there were several CfD's I think you should be clearer about which one you are referring to. In the 2nd Wrangler CfD, lots of new info came to light after the close of the recent first wrangler CfD. Disallowing this info as "not new" here is insane procedure, in light of the second wrangler close.
- Here is a parallel example: An Afd is closed, bizarrely, as KEEP for
Lord Tweedledee whose claim to notability is that he is King of Earth. In the AfD for his twin,
Lord Tweedledum, who says he is King of the Moon, people argue that the claims are nutty. The second AfD is closed as KEEP, " to be consistent". And then in the joint DRV, people say that the information that neither are King of Earth or King of the Moon is "not new info", so we must endorse keeping both. Is this reasonable procedure?
John Z (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
I think that the commenters established well enough that a list based upon the information is "notable" (whatever that means these days). But as far as this being a category, all they showed was that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "But this one is better than those". Which still doesn't explain how this isn't
overcat.- It isn't overcategorization because this was proved to be a "most notable award" as much as one can prove this for any award, which no one has even disagreed with. Do you? If not, why do you disagree with
WP:OC?
John Z (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- As I said above, I'm not seeing how any new information has come to light between the closure of the CfDs and the opening of this DRV.
- Nobody is saying it has.
John Z (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
You seemed to be. And if you're not saying it has, then you've removed that leg of your arguement for validity of this DRV.
- No one else interpreted my comments that way, as I explicitly denied it in my first sentence in this DRV.
John Z (
talk)
06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Now if you're arguing whether DRV in general should have different guidelines, please feel free to note that opinion at
WT:DRV. And speaking of opinions, in looking over even this DRV "discussion", that's pretty much all I'm seeing: Opinions of whether this award is "notable enough" for categorisation. How is this any different than if several companies in the 1950s named a particular person "Salesman of the year"? That person could get any job in the sales field due to that statement about them by the several companies. Should we categorise such people? -
jc37
23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I explained as clearly as I could that it is you (and Good Ol'factory) who are inadvertently, but in effect proposing a novel, unrobust and Kafkaesque interpretation of deletion review, that basically eliminates it, and which would be very easy to manipulate to keep or delete any article or category according to a tiny minority's whims. Dominus made similar points above.
John Z (
talk)
06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
I went back to
WP:DRV for the exact phrase. Currently it's: "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article."
- (With the latter part obviously applying to articles.)
- But I'm not seeing anywhere where you are saying that "new information has come to light since [the] deletion". What you seem to be saying is that new information has come to light since the most recent cfd of the senior category, and that information occurred during the cfd of the "second wranglers". What I'm saying is that no "new information has come to light since [the] deletion" of second wranglers. Something you have repeatedly agreed with.
- There have been several "problems". First is that several people tried to inappropriately use the second wrangler CfD as a DRV for the senior wrangler category. And now are "surprised, shocked, and aghast" that the closer didn't treat it that way.
And so now, here you are, seemingly trying to say that the second nom should be treated as the "new information". As I said above, the best you'll likely get with that position might be a relisting. (But who knows, in the end we may all be "surprised and shocked"...) -
jc37
06:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
If you see something different, please feel free to share it for further discussion. -
jc37
06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Note to anyone trying to read the above, John Z has threaded his responses to my comments as indented within my initial responses. (Seemed easier to just note this than to try to refactor : ) -
jc37
23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- My main point however was that not considering the second wrangler debate information as new for purpose of this DRV is a perfectly mad "review"
process, that does not deserve the name "review".
John Z (
talk)
23:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
No, since both CfDs are being considered together. And let's say, for the sake of your argument that this DRV was only on the first CfD. You know what the result would be? Relist to discuss the new information. And that's seemingly what happened already, despite the best efforts of several commenters in the second CfD, the first CfD was constantly being discussed. And that "relisting" had the same result.
- And so now we're here. If you're claiming that new information has come to light, and therefore you want a relisting. Fine. Please bring forth your new information for everyone (and eventually the closer) to assess to determine if it is indeed "new" since the CfDs.
- In other words, new information won't get you a result of "keep", it'll get a result of "relist for discussion of the new information".
Just remember that these discussions are determined based upon the weight of the arguments of those discussing and are not vote counts. So if this is relisted, you may wish to be ready with your solid arguments concerning this "new information", because (as I mention above), those who oppose will have literally years of examples where such categories are repeatedly and consistantly deleted. (See
WT:OC for a rather large list. And by the way, note that that discussion started because I was wondering whether we should remove the AWARD section from WP:OC. So any accusations towards me are quite clearly unfounded. Not directed at you personally, or any specific thing you have said, just a general aside.) -
jc37
06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- As explained many times, the deletes are the ones who are contradicting
WP:OC and practice and the examples of the
WT:OC list, without even answering arguments that that is what they are doing. "Such categories" are not constantly, indeed never AFAIK deleted. We still have the Miss America, Heisman Trophy and Kentucky Derby winners categories.
John Z (
talk)
09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- overturn both Simply put, to anyone who knows the history of the 19th and early 20th century math in Great Britain, deleting these categories is simply ridiculous. I know DRV isn't supposed to be CfD round two, but this is more or less what I would have said if I had known these had been nominated for deletion. Seriously, this is just ridiculous. There doesn't seem like anything resembling a consensus for deletion and anyone who knows about this topic would almost certainly not have called for such deletion.
JoshuaZ (
talk)
02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both I missed this CfD, since nobody notified me, and I didn't have these categories on my watchlist. Regarding the latter, I thought the issue had been clearly decided in the February 2008 CfD, so didn't bother keeping them on my watchlist. In my view (out of courtesy, if nothing else), the CfD(2) nominator should have notified participants in the previous CfD. However, all that is not so important. What matters is that these two categories are definitely notable, right up there amongst the most significant you can get in 19th century mathematics. They also have a clear, well-defined criterion for inclusion. There is absolutely no justification for deletion according to Wikipedia policy. I agree with JoshuaZ that this is one of the most ridiculous deletion decisions I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
NSH001 (
talk)
11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both Obviously improper as there was a biased close and no consensus.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
13:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both: I understand the objections based on
Valedictorian grounds, but being Senior or Second Wrangler in the 19th century was an extremely notable thing, and based on the CfD consensus and this fact the categories should be undeleted.
Throwawayhack (
talk)
14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. I'm not convinced the closer was in error, because I believe he did close in accordance with the consensus available to him at that time, but the consensus was simply wrong.
A point made above was that the purpose of DRV is to determine if the closer has made a mistake, and I take issue with that, because it implies that an "overturn" is a black mark against the closer. I think the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia better.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. At 09:51, 25 March 2009,
User:C S re-created
Category:Senior wranglers. It's possible the user's not aware of this process here, since he participated in the CfD but hasn't appeared here. Anyway, I've re-deleted it pending the outcome here.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- See
this message on his talk page telling him about the DRV].
Bencherlite
Talk
21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, so he was presumably aware of this process. How nice of him not to care.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- In fact, he left me a comment stating that he purposefully attempted to
"circumvent ridiculous process". Even nicer.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Ol'factory does seem to be putting process ahead of the encyclopedia; but if no new trend emerges, these should be restored in a few days. Restoring them two days ago was precipitate, but harmless.
Septentrionalis
PMAnderson
23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- If re-creating it was "harmless", then so too was re-deleting it. Whether even having the category is a good idea for the encyclopedia is a matter of vigorous debate, so I hardly think adhering to a process for resolving the issue is "putting process ahead of the encyclopedia". I will take your assessment with a grain of salt, though, because of your other comments above.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- But this current process is not about resolving the issue of whether or not the category is a good idea for the encyclopedia. Instead, this DRV is a procedural discussion about whether specific guidelines were followed in the CfD process. If you truly believe that "having the category is a good idea for the encyclopedia is a matter of vigorous debate" then presumably you would want to "vote" "overturn" on this DRV so that everything can go back to a CfD where the merits of the category can be debated. Otherwise, you are "putting process ahead of encyclopedia" by saying that you don't care whether or not tonnes of people disagree with the original CfD because it already happened and broke no guidelines. Am I wrong?
RobHar (
talk)
01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes. The vigorous debate already happened. Twice. Three times if we count much of the discussion here. In any case, we were referring to re-deleting the category when it was re-created during this DRV, not what the final decision here should be.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I am going to try to summarize what I see as the procedural failure here.
- In the CFD for
Category:Senior Wranglers, certain arguments were made as to why the category should not be deleted. The closing admin said that these claims constituted "the key question", but disregarded them, not because they were erroneous, but because they were "unattributed"; that is, unsubstantiated.
- In the CFD for
Category:Second Wranglers, the "key question" claims were extensively substantiated, but the closing admin again disgregarded them, saying that if the first category went, the second must too, and that the proper venue for addressing these claims would be a DRV of
Category:Senior Wranglers.
- This is that DRV, but now many opponents of the category are again refusing to engage the issue on its merits, saying that the matter was thoroughly discussed during the second CFD, that the discussion has gone on too long, or that DRV is only appropriate to consider "new information [that] has come to light in the three hours between the close of the 2nd wranglers CFD and this DRV."
In short, there are significant issues of fact ("the key question", as the first closing admin put it) which, despite the vast discussion, have not been taken into account by the process. The closing admin in the second CFD promised a hearing of these issues during DRV. If the matter is rejected here on purely procedural grounds, because the issues brought up are not "new", then this promise was a bait-and-switch. —
Dominus (
talk)
06:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Completely agree, and I think a certain degree of common sense needs to be injected into this debate: people advocating deletion should provide arguments as to why these categories should be deleted based on the categories themselves, not on technicalities to do with the deletion process. Only then will a proper debate be held and a proper consensus established.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Request for the closer of this review – If the outcome of this review is to recreate the categories and relist them for discussion (as opposed to endorsing the deletions or relisting without recreating), then please do so at
Category:Senior Wranglers and
Category:Second Wranglers (upper case) as there was consensus (among those who argued to keep the category) in the February 5 discussion that "Senior Wrangler" and "Second Wrangler" should be capitalized as titles. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both due to the lameness of the deletion discussion. Someone didn't like the capitalization of the category, and then some people began mumbling about valedictorians and decided to delete the whole thing. However,
Cambridge university really is different from an American high school. It is easy to demonstrate that Senior Wranglers and Second Wranglers were a notable feature of British academics in the 19th and into the twentieth century. For example, have a look at the bottom of page 10 of
this book.
Cardamon (
talk)
09:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both (with capitalisation of both words). Being the top or second graduate in Maths from the top British University is a notable distinction. Historically,
Cambridge Iniversity was stronger than Oxford in Maths and the Sciences, going back to the time of Sir
Isaac Newton. I cannot think of many equivalent awards (etc), so that this does not open the floodgates to a mass of categories for minor awards (somethign I would deplore). Having read the previous discussion, it seems to me that there is a strong consensus for restoring the categories. Procedural arguments should count for little. The question is whether we should or should not have the category, and I say we should.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
And once again, DRV becomes XfD2:The New Batch. -
jc37
12:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure if you remember it, but it was actually you who suggest we come here to appeal against the deletion of Senior Wranglers "I agree. Drv is that way... - jc37 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)"
[1].--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
13:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Yes the quote is accurate, though the context, not-so-much. I was suggesting to do an immediate DRV (at that time) on the senior wranglers nom, rather than try to re-argue the senior wrangler nom again at the "second wranglers" nom. And now, rather than try to re-argue it (again) here. DRV isn't XFD2. Maybe a re-read of
WP:DRV might help? -
jc37
14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That answer makes no sense - why would deletion review have been appropriate then but suddenly inappropriate now? Looking over DRV, I can numerous indicators that this actually is the correct place to discuss this. In the intro: "This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." (this discussion is the former and the latter indicates that the Cfd on Senior Wranglers should have gone through here instead, given that it comfortably survived a Cfd less than a year earlier). In the box below it that explains the purpose of DRV: "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion" (yes, a large quantity of information has "become" available since Senior Wranglers was deleted). There are other examples, but I fail to see any reason listed on that page why this should be an inappropriate forum for this debate.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
It depends on what "this debate" is. Is it raising a question about the closure of the senior wranglers category? The second wranglers category? Both? Any of those are welcome to be discussed here. But as I was attempting to say with a bit of humour, DRV isn't XfD2. This isn't the venue for arguments concerning the categories themselves unless new information has come to light since the closure. The place where the confusion seems to be lying is that you are (presumably) arguing that the "new information" came to light in the second wrangler CfD. And so based upon that I would not necessarily argue that a DRV nomination of senior wranglers would be inappropriate. But that would only be if the second wrangler nom was closed as keep. It wasn't. Which pretty much extinguishes the hope that the "new information" was valid. So then the next step would be to nominate second wranglers for DRV first. And if that DRV overturns the second wranglers nom, then you might have a case for overturning senior wranglers, based upon the "new information". But as it stands right now, what we're seeing in this "discussion" is more opinion about the categories themselves and statements of "Well I would have voted x had I known about the nom". Such "votes" can be ignored by the closer here.
- So I'm not saying that you are or are not wrong about the cats, I'm saying (atm anyway) that you seem confused about process and venue, etc.
I don't envy the closer of this. Due to the issues I just laid out above (both of process and of opining), they're likely going to need to do a bit of
WP:IAR. Which is likely to not make anyone happy. -
jc37
01:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I still don't understand the problem - as was firmly established in the closers statement on the Second Wrangler's Cfd, these categories stand or fall together, and thus the new information that has emerged since the initial review is the important factor here because it applies to both categories equally. That Cfd was massively weighted towards keep and at the very least would have closed with a "no consensus" - the reason that it didn't was that Senior Wranglers had been erroneously deleted first and so Second Wranglers had (apparently) to follow suit. Why is there the need for two seperate DRVs to deal with what is effectively a single issue? I don't believe that there is any requirement for Second Wranglers to pass DRV before Senior Wranglers can be placed before one and I still don't understand why you told us to come here if it was the wrong place to address this issue.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- overturn mostly on the basis of closing a discusion one participated in. I think I understand the reasoning there and I certainly don't think harm was intended or there was a system being gamed, but procedurally it seems like a problem.
Hobit (
talk)
20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn. The comparison to Valedictorians which the deletion position is based on is totally spurious. As many people have pointed out this was a widely recognised and publicised achievement, and sources have been presented attesting to that. I should note that this had been left open a long time, and as a regular CfD closer and someone who hadn't !voted on the subject I was planning to close it myself. But after reading jc37's comments
here I felt that he at least would not be happy with that - because I am a student at Cambridge (albeit one who is erm... ambivalent about its mathematicians :) Therefore I resolved to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest - and it gave me another reason to stay the hell away from this wasps' nest.
the wub
"?!"
01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I have made a comment on the subject of this discussion at my talk page.
[2]. There must be a way of having XfD2, since its accepted that consensus can change, and obvious that mistakes can be made. If there is no formal provision for it, then, by IAR, any forum will serve. Any process, any venue, as long as we get it right.
DGG (
talk)
03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- What was that sound? Why, I do believe it was all the local deletionists having simultaneous infarctions.
A potential issue with that suggestion is that from the deletionist point of view, "DRV is not AfD round 2" is the magic mantra that ends what would otherwise be an infinite cycle. There has to be some final stopping point for repeated AfDs. With repeated nominations of articles that survive, it's
WP:NOTAGAIN, and with repeated requests to undelete articles that don't, it's "DRV is not AfD round 2". But on balance, since it's possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion as many times as they like, and we have articles that have survived four or more AfDs, surely it has to be possible for someone to bring an article back to DRV on the basis that the AfD consensus was simply wrong. So I think either remarks to the effect that "DRV is not AfD round 2" need to be disregarded, or we give
WP:NOTAGAIN the force of policy.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- This is a broader issue than I raised here. I favor symmetry, and I favor closure. there should be some limits to repeated deletion attempts. There should be as many opportunities to reinsert material as to delete it, and at the same frequency. ? 4 months, then 12, then 24? --more only after a deletion review.
DGG (
talk)
15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- But the issue here is narrower. there must be at least one possibility of appeal from all decisions.
DGG (
talk)
15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Given all of the problems that exist in the wild world of CfD, it is truly enlightening to see how this DRV is playing out. Every single vote here from those who do not spend the overwhelming majority of their time passing judgments on categories has been to overturn. The only endorsements of the admin's decision to delete in the face of the clearest possible consensus for retention have come from
User:Carlossuarez46,
User:Good Olfactory,
User:Jc37 and
User:Kbdank71 together with a bleat from
User:Otto4711. That this group, which consists mostly of admins who have been overrepresented at CfD, are the only people who believe that the decision was in compliance with Wikipedia policy, while every other participant believes otherwise, should send a clear message that there is something deeply wrong at CfD.
Alansohn (
talk)
00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
- That's an extremely wild assumption. That something is "deeply wrong at CFD" based upon this one DRV? I've heard some really wild accusations at wikipedia, but this tops them all. Do you have any other proof besides the opinions of five people at one DRV that things are wrong? I can easily list a few DRV's that were closed as endorsed when you not only wanted to overturn, but you nominated the DRV, does that make you "deeply wrong"? --
Kbdank71
02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Unfortunately, too many editors will give the benefit of the doubt to closing admins at DRV. The bar is set so high to overturn any decision, that even when there is clear evidence of questionable actions and personal bias creeping in editors will give the benefit of the doubt. This case, where there are four admins who regularly participate at and close CfDs, plus one bleater, differing with every single other Wikipedia editor on a basic question of how to determine consensus, ought to be sending a very strong message that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong at CfD. In far too many situations, the goal of making categories as useful as possible for navigation has been lost to the competing goal of deleting categories based on arbitrary personal biases. While a small lesson may be learned hear from the overwhelming consensus, the bigger question is how to address the problems at CfD.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That's the second time you have alleged problems at CFD and given no examples or proof. Perhaps someone can just move this thread to the talk page as being off-topic for this DRV. --
Kbdank71
03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I can't possibly offer any "proof" from this DRV as you've demanded, but it is clear that there is a fundamental difference in interpreting Wikipedia policy and consensus demonstrated here. What it proves is subject to interpretation, and I've offered mine. I'd love to hear your explanation for the discrepancy in understanding consensus between the five endorsers and every other editor who participated here.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You may want to read
WP:CON to get a better idea of what consensus is. Especially the part about "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the 'logic' (point of view) of the majority." It doesn't mean that the minority opinion is wrong, or that something is broken. --
Kbdank71
14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Correct, but it isn't unreasonable to suspect a problem given data like that. I don't know that there is a problem at CfD. I don't follow it. But the above discussion makes me suspect there is.
Hobit (
talk)
15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Kbdank71, I would suggest that you read
WP:CON and then take a look at the CfD under discussion here, where the clearest possible consensus was for retention. I find it disturbing that you are pushing for a rigid interpretation of "strict logic", despite a complete lack of agreement on the part of any outside editor, to get a category deleted, and are disap pointed that your pedantic reading is not being accepted by others. I do enjoy the wikilawyering used at CfD and here to insist that consensus should be ignored to meet nitpicking interpretations of Wikipedia policy. The problem with RfC in dealing with the problems here is that it is structured primarily to deal with one problem at a time, and this goes far beyond that. The disinfecting light that has been shined on the problems at CfD might hopefully provide a small step in bringing in other editors and admins with a greater degree of respect for making the goal of the category system to make it an effective tool for navigation by readers, not a means of imposing arbitrary interpretations of unreasonably restrictive rules that clearly conflict with essential Wikipedia policies.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- If there is any concern with the way CfD works, then it would be helpful if someone could point to some specific examples outside of this CfD/DRV to illustrate the point. This hasn't been done, I'm assuming because either it can't be, or because of space/time concerns, etc. In any case, this is not really what this forum is for.
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion awaits, however. But to allege that an editor's opinion in a DRV discussion is symptomatic of some overarching problem is mildly presumptuous at best, and an unnecessary attack against specific editors at worst.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- "If there is any concern with the way CfD works, then it would be helpful if someone could point to some specific examples outside of this CfD/DRV" At least we have agreement that this is one example of CfD gone bad.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, Weak Relist - I've struck all my comments above, in simple protest and honestly disgust for the proceedings thus far. I don't envy the closer here whatsoever. To have to attempt to sift through a re-arguing of the XfD topic, a series of ad hominem attacks, arguments about the efficacy of categories, and of CFD itself, all of which have no place in a DRV discussion, per long, long, LONG, precedent. (Not to mention having to try to figure out what happened when...) I really would rather not see a relist, because it may be more of the same, but at least those who claim to not have had an opportunity to comment would have that opportunity, I suppose. And I suggest this with no slight or prejudice against the original closers. (As I said above, I still do not see a procedural error here. Just a heaping lot of confusion about a heaping lot of things.) -
jc37
15:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. I'll join my fellow admins who are apparently off the rails at CfD and say this was a correct close. The most revealing exchange in the discussion was when Bduke said "Being a Wrangler is very defining and is always mentioned about the person in any summary of their life." and Carlos Suarez said, "So is procreation, divorce, and other life events, but we don't categorize those either." Wikipedia categorization is about making choices about how an article is defined. Some things are clearly in ("When was he born?") and some things are not ("When did he get married?"). For schooling, "Where did he go?" is potentially defining, and so we often have categories for that. But "What were his grades?" is not defining, and valedictory status is a sub-derivation of that, so it makes sense not to categorize by that fact wherever the person went to school. To do so specifically for one country or not another makes the case even less defining.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Are you offering an argument for CfD, because that already closed? The question here is the ability to read and interpret consensus, not how to best insert your own opinion to override and ignore consensus.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn I was originally not going to involve myself in this discussion but I feel there are some things that still need to be said. Its obvious to most people who've done any sort of spot auditing of the CfD process that there have been issues with the way some CfDs have been conducted. While I'm not really surprised at the debate here and some of the stuff brought up here really probably needed to be said, the larger issues likely still need to be addressed with a proper RFC.
One of the things I'm seeing in places here that I do not agree with is the "editors vs those mean admins who delete stuff". IMO an admin bit isn't anything special and someone with said bit isn't any different from another editor. Sure, that bit will give someone access to the delete link, deletion logs, etc, but other than that, the person with an admin bit is still just another editor. In this particular discussion there are editors, current admins, and former admins who disagree with the way the CfD was conducted and played out and there are editors, current admins, and former admins who agree with it. This is a disagreement and discussion between editors (with or without the admin bit) and not editors vs admins.
In addressing the ever constant "DRV is not XfD round 2"— just stop. That argument might have worked 4 years ago but it is largely ignored now and its pretty much equivilant to
WP:IDL,
WP:JNN,
WP:RUBBISH, etc depending on where in the discussion it is inserted. The "DRV is not ..." argument has been misused, abused, and overused so often in the past that most people don't even bother to pay attention to it now. DRV is the place to attempt to deal with issues that are left unresolved in XfD.
--
Tothwolf (
talk)
10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn both Appears to be the case that the CfD discussion, as is often the case, failed to elicit responses from interested parties suited to addressing the notability issue with these categories- following a discussion that appears to have been initiated over capitalization??? There were at least three different discussions going on in the initial CfD- should the category exist, how should it be capitalized, and should it be replaced by a list. The second discussion concluded that the Second category should have the same fate as the Senior category, that the Second shouldn't be deleted, and that because Senior was Second would be. I'm quite enjoying this. --
Clay Collier (
talk)
10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
|