- Category:Lithuanian surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Necessary category redirect to the newly created category Category:Lithuanian-language surnames, to assist editors creating new articles in locating the proper category, by redirecting from the "common sense" category title formerly used at WP. This is similar to the category redirect Category:People_from_Minneapolis, which redirects to the proper category, serving a prosaic yet essential function of informing editors of the correct location of the category. Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The relevant deletion discussion voted to upmerge the articles. So are you proposing to ignore that completely for the newly created article? It starts to feel like an end-run around the decision. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, no indication given as to how the deletion process was not properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Stifle. --Kbdank71 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the closing admin of the debate in question of this discussion. The decision to create the linguistics based categories instead of the nationality based ones seems to have been the decision of the closing admin and I'm not 100% sure whether his close precluded redirects where a linguistic root is inherently tied to a national root (for example swedish language surnames, greek language surnames or, for that matter, lithuanian language surnames). The main problem with the old cats system seems to have been indiscrim and inherent verifiablility issues, but a redir along the lines of Category:Italian surnames seems fairly harmless. That said, this isn't really a question of overturning so much as a request for permission to create a redirect... Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Italian-language surnames currently has 43 entries. Many of them are badly formatted, and have the wrong template. Only the main article has any language references. I repeat: there are no references! Every single one of these names should be removed. That category redirect is a continuous disaster.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto most of the above. While there's nothing wrong with the closure, there's also nothing wrong with allowing a category redirect at that title. Were it not for the history of this particular category I would have created the redirect myself. So, unsalt and redirect as nom suggests. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest asking for wider discussion of the general topic by the community as an RfC. There was very dubious consensus for the general change and it a a far-reaching one. The close was essentially a proposal of the closing admin, and , though in my opinion probably the best solution, did not represent the view of anyone other than himself. The question as I understand it is the ambiguity of the term: whether it ought to mean Lithuanian language surnames, Surnames used in Lithuania, or Surnames used by people of Lithuanian citizenship or extraction. Good arguments were raised for each of these. The decision was to go by language, and leave other possibilities open. Not a bad decision, but it needs further discussion. DGG 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- yes, and I thought then,as I think still, that this should be a community decision with wider attention. I'm not really able to get as involved as I'd like to be on this one, but I think an RfC is the next step. DGG (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above comments ignore the fact that a category redirect is needed, because "Lithuanian surnames" in the commonest understanding does in fact mean "Lithuanian-language surnames," and our users need to know where the correct category is in the same way that Category:People_from_Minneapolis leads to the correct category. The term "Lithuanian-language surnames" is nowhere to be found in the literature on this subject, while the term "Lithuanian surnames" is a well-understood term, in fact the term most new editors would input as their category, find that category has been deleted, but without a redirect explaining where the proper category is. Kindly address comments to this important issue rather than simply saying "endorse close, it was a good close" which doesn't address this real-life issue at all. Badagnani (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Does it matter that an admin closed the discussion and DRV found no consensus to overturn? One category got recreated per this DRV so are you planning on relisting each one by one? It may be a scattershot approach. And you can been saying for quite a few weeks that this is all "needed" without much proof beyond your assertion that it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm opposed to this one by one attack on the original decision, that itself was based on precedent. When we nominate related categories one by one, the nomination is attacked as "Salami slicing". When we nominate them as a group (it took more than 12 hours for me to complete the nomination), we are attacked as too broad. That July 6th review was the second review, and there was considerable canvassing. It was improperly handled.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (closer). Just to give my views as a background to this: the close did not explicitly state that these categories could not be changed to redirects. A few weeks ago, I was speedily G4 deleting these as I thought it was perhaps too early to conclude that the "by-language" scheme was going to be the only successor scheme, since the close had mentioned the possibility of other schemes (such as by-culture ones, presumably), in which case a straight redirect could perhaps be inappropriately pre-empting this possibility. However, there were two editors in particular who were quite vigorously pushing for the old category names to become redirects. At the end of the day, I don't care that much about whether a category redirect exists or not, so I let the issue pass and stopped deleting them. Obviously other editors have continued to G4 them. Substantively, I don't really have an opinion, though I do think that giving the development of the new scheme(s) some breathing room before we decide what to do with the old categories would not necessarily be a bad thing. But good luck trying to convince the converted about this issue—I tried but found that those pushing for these had already decided what they wanted and weren't interested in considering other positions or compromising in any way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure, Deletion, and Speedy Deletion -- no indication given as to how the deletion process was not properly followed. Moreover, these repeated Badagnani category redirects have become a serious problem.
- As articles are reverted, or the category is blindly added, the category redirect moves a "by country" article into a "by language" category. This makes it difficult for our users to understand the reason the category is then removed....
- Always keeping our users in mind, it's better that the category is red-linked, so that they don't think it is a correct category at all!
- Always keeping our users in mind, an attempt to recreate the category will give them a nice list of deletion log entries, with a link to the original CfD decision.
- Always keeping our users in mind, they will know to check the ((surname)) template usage documentation, and read the category descriptions, and check the references, and carefully put the article into the correctly named category.
- In this particular case, the recreation was deleted 8 times by 3 different administrators. (See logs above.)
- In this case, there are currently 43 entries in Category:Lithuanian-language surnames:
- 1 is a Talk page, for goodness sakes!
- None have references. I repeat: NONE.
- Therefore, all should be removed from the category.
- A category redirect would exacerbate the problem.
- Many/most of the other Badagnani category redirects have been deleted and salted (and frequently follow an outright recreation of the original category, because Badagnani has not been cooperative in the CfD process and its result). The only remaining ones from this June 6 CfD are:
- Category:Italian surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Polish surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- created just yesterday
- Category:Icelandic surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- As with the June 25 review, there is no consensus to reinstate this individual category in its current form.
- This is a repeated abuse of the review process.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Yet another in a string of isolated DRVs for categories in the Fooian surname structure. No indication that anything has changed regarding this specific category within that structure. Suggest that if Badagnani continues with his present pattern of bad-faith recreations and bad-faith accusations against fellow editors here and elsewhere, he be sanctioned. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse nothing wrong with the close and concensus hasn't changed since. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Nothing to indicate a change in overall consensus. Editors should work on discussing it at Category talk:Surnames rather than trying to brute force their view in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - DRV is not CfD Round 2, which some of the usual suspects should know by now. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|