Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) →Category:Scandals with -gate suffix: and [[WP:USEFUL |
Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) →Category:Scandals with -gate suffix: By the way, I was not making a "threat" and would appreciate it if you retracted that part of your comment. |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
*'''Endorse repeated deletion'''. Having this category would directly contradict the long-standing guideline that says we [[Wikipedia:OCAT#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names|don't categorize unrelated subjects by shared name]]. There is a guideline and three or four past CFD discussions that have come to the same conclusion. Yes, consensus can change, but where is the evidence that it has? If re-creation is allowed, it will just be subjected to yet ''another'' full CFD, and it is very likely that it would be deleted ''again''. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse repeated deletion'''. Having this category would directly contradict the long-standing guideline that says we [[Wikipedia:OCAT#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names|don't categorize unrelated subjects by shared name]]. There is a guideline and three or four past CFD discussions that have come to the same conclusion. Yes, consensus can change, but where is the evidence that it has? If re-creation is allowed, it will just be subjected to yet ''another'' full CFD, and it is very likely that it would be deleted ''again''. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
**These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
**These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
***I'm not sure that you + two other editors (one of whom appears to have a non-consensus-based personal policy of allowing the existence of ''any'' category if a list also exists; and one of whom argues [[WP:USEFUL]]) represents "the community as a whole", but whatever. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
***I'm not sure that you + two other editors (one of whom appears to have a non-consensus-based personal policy of allowing the existence of ''any'' category if a list also exists; and one of whom argues [[WP:USEFUL]]) represents "the community as a whole", but whatever. By the way, I was not making a "threat" and would appreciate it if you retracted that part of your comment. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
====[[:Sceabhar na dheasa]]==== |
====[[:Sceabhar na dheasa]]==== |
Revision as of 22:46, 7 February 2010
6 February 2010
Category:Scandals with -gate suffix
- Category:Scandals with -gate suffix (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This category was deleted because it was a recreation of a category that was previously deleted. It has been previously deleted four times: 1 2 3 and 4. There is a list that covers -gate constructions at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. I want to bring this to deletion review because in all of the CFD discussions there was no mention of -gate constructions as a linguistic phenomenon (specifically snowclones). I think this category is most well understood and utilized in that context. There is precedent for categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech. Gobonobo T C 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- So, you are not challenging the deletion as a recreation of previously deleted categories with a similar name? You are proposing that the category be allowed to exist as a snowclone collection. If that was the case, wouldn't the category be properly titled Category:Snowclones which already exists? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would consider it a separate sub-category of category:snowclones. Since there are around 70 pages that would fit into the -gate category, I thought it would clutter up the snowclones category to put them all there. I brought this to Deletion Review to reexamine the creation of the category because there is significant information pertinent to the debate that was unavailable at the time the debate took place. Perhaps I should have brought one of the previous CFD deletions up for review? I'm not very familiar with DRV procedures or the best way to go about this. Gobonobo T C 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that is what is meant, as I read your example "categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech", is actually categerization of the technique themselves, not of articles which are titled according to that technique. If there is an encylopedia article to be written about -gate, then that would be added to the snowclones category, but not every article which in some way has a snowclone relation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. I was referring to the subcategories of category:figures of speech. Just as category:onomatopoeias is a collection of onomatopoeias and category:euphemisms is a collection of euphemisms. Gobonobo T C 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I understand, though I personally thing some of those are overcats the categorised articles. In the case pf category:onomatopoeias it doesn't contain articles which happen to contain onomatopeia in the title likewise If there were an article about the use -gate, that would fit in the snowclones category, not every article about something dubbed -gate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. I was referring to the subcategories of category:figures of speech. Just as category:onomatopoeias is a collection of onomatopoeias and category:euphemisms is a collection of euphemisms. Gobonobo T C 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that is what is meant, as I read your example "categorization by rhetorical technique as seen in Category:Figures of speech", is actually categerization of the technique themselves, not of articles which are titled according to that technique. If there is an encylopedia article to be written about -gate, then that would be added to the snowclones category, but not every article which in some way has a snowclone relation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would consider it a separate sub-category of category:snowclones. Since there are around 70 pages that would fit into the -gate category, I thought it would clutter up the snowclones category to put them all there. I brought this to Deletion Review to reexamine the creation of the category because there is significant information pertinent to the debate that was unavailable at the time the debate took place. Perhaps I should have brought one of the previous CFD deletions up for review? I'm not very familiar with DRV procedures or the best way to go about this. Gobonobo T C 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment can't see what extra is being added here, this isn't CFD round X. We don't have precedents on wikipedia, so something which you see as similar doesn't mean a lot, as above that category is a category of articles about the techniques themselves, not every article which could conceivably related to the techniques. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Allow recreation now that there is a parent structure to organize this ctageory, there's a great reason to allow the category to be recreated despite the prior deletion of categories with vaguely similar names. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- allow re-creation Consensus can change. In general if there is a category there should be a list, and vice versa. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- less than a month ago the last CFD had 5 deletes vs 1 keep. Ok it was only open a couple of hours, but given the poor turn out many CFDs get, it would certainly seem to point one way. Just stating consensus can change is pretty meaningless, especially when the most recent discussion tends to point to an underlying state that consensus hasn't. --82.7.40.7 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.40.7 (talk)
- Allow recreation It's useful to readers. Usefulness may not be a good reason to keep an article, but it's an excellent reason to keep a category. A reader trying to figure out a name can find this category from any of the "-gate" articles it covers, then search out the article the reader wants. Very convenient. You couldn't find the list article that fast unless you already knew the exact name. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- In my experience, WP:USEFUL is referred to just as much in CFD as AFD. Wherever the argument "it's useful" is cited, it is never accorded much weight. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse repeated deletion. Having this category would directly contradict the long-standing guideline that says we don't categorize unrelated subjects by shared name. There is a guideline and three or four past CFD discussions that have come to the same conclusion. Yes, consensus can change, but where is the evidence that it has? If re-creation is allowed, it will just be subjected to yet another full CFD, and it is very likely that it would be deleted again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you + two other editors (one of whom appears to have a non-consensus-based personal policy of allowing the existence of any category if a list also exists; and one of whom argues WP:USEFUL) represents "the community as a whole", but whatever. By the way, I was not making a "threat" and would appreciate it if you retracted that part of your comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sceabhar na dheasa
- Sceabhar na dheasa (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Currently doing post graduate research in Irish history and would like to see a temporary review of what this article contained. Just briefly. Many thanks Ian Pender (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you enable email on your account then an admin can email you the article's contents. Hut 8.5 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)