Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter – No consensus. In a proportion of about 2 to 1, people here are of the view that the CfD was properly closed as "delete". The arguments on both sides are complicated (like the CfD and the facts it concerns) and are prima facie all mostly reasonable, which means that I have no basis on which to give either side more weight (assuming arguendo that as DRV closer I'd be allowed to do so). This means that we have no consensus to overturn the closure, which therefore remains in force by default. Sandstein 09:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Misinterpretation/misrepresentation of consensus 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and declare the original nomination beyond scope. As requester. The closing opinion misrepresented the consensus by claiming no means yes. The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping (with the same name or with another name). The closing opinion basically twists the "keep but rename" position to mean "delete as rename". In order to do this, a third, non-existent option is invented: "recreate and rename". Apart from the absurdity, this goes against both the letter and spirit of the "keep but rename" position, held by almost 50% of the participants. There is no consensus for the "delete" position and the close should be overturned. Note that the original nomination happened as the fate of the category was already being discussed at its project page. Apart from jumping the gun by bringing it here in the midst of discussion, there is the question of whether narrow tracking categories fall under the scope of CfD. The closing opinion with the novelty of "recreate=rename" effectively treats it as a "discouraged category". Following the closing revision, the nomination may be explicitly marked as void. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] In case this is not clear, I was an active participant in the discussion, under various unregistered (IP) handles. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the CfD close as nominator, and perhaps some admin can reread the CfD and remind the IP (and some others) about WP:CIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON. No idea where the claim comes from that CfD shouldn't be the place to discuss the fate of hidden categories placed more than 1 million articles and for which no actual purpose is formulated ("tracking" is not a purpose, "tracking" is just another word for "categorizing" in this instance, the question is what one would do with these and why these are being singled out, considering that the discussion which lead to the creation of the cat was overturned and these parameters clearly indicated as perfectly acceptable ones which aren't discouraged, deprecated, or to be replaced by synonyms). Whatever the result of the DRV, closing the CfD as "void" would be totally wrong. Fram (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The closer wrote From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be. At the time of the close, that discussion had already happened at Help Talk:CS1, and the code to implement consensus-approved, neutrally named tracking categories had been implemented in the sandbox, allowing the modules to neutrally track any parameters of interest (as we have been doing for many years with parameters like `\|authors=`). We had been waiting for this CFD to close before implementing the new neutral category names, in case there was some additional nuance that needed to be accounted for. Perhaps jc37 (the closer) could look at this linked discussion and see if it meets their criteria for such a discussion, and then formally endorse those new category names so that we don't have to go through all this again. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (I argued for deletion, so I'm involved) but I don't see that the close misrepresents the consensus at all. It's clear that this discussion came to a consensus that a category called "CS1 maint: discouraged parameter" should not exist. I also see a consensus that a category to track these redirects shouldn't exist under another name either - that consensus isn't as strong but it is still extant when you read the arguments presented rather than just look at who shouted loudest and/or most often. I haven't looked at the help talk discussion yet, but if that came to the consensus Jonesey95 says it did then we have a problem of parallel discussions coming to opposite consensuses (which is why having parallel discussions is usually a bad idea). I would argue that a well-attended CfD following a well-attended RfC that came to essentially the same conclusion is more likely to be the stronger consensus than one in an obscure location, but that's not the sort of thing one editor should be deciding alone (regardless of which editor that is). Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Thryduulf that parallel discussions are a bad idea. A discussion about removing the "discouraged parameter" category had already been in progress for more than 24 hours when the CFD was created, and clear consensus had already formed there that the category should be deleted. Hence, there was no reason for the CFD to exist at all (as I wrote at the CFD: ... currently being discussed at Help Talk:CS1. This discussion is moot; there is no disagreement at HT:CS1 that the current tracking category name needs to change.). The CFD and its subsequent close just muddied the waters. It should have been procedurally closed as redundant, IMHO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] CfD is the correct venue for disputing the existence of a category, and the CfD supersedes the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 per WP:CONLEVEL. This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus ~~at the same place~~ (to run Monkbot 18) that was shown to be inconsistent with broader community consensus, and the same mistake should not be made again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] And exactly how many tracking categories have been previously discussed at CfD? How many of that set were brought here while their fate was being discussed at their project's page? How many of that smaller set have been nominated because of the opinion that their existence is somehow irrevocably tied to an RfC? Take your time answering, but some data would be forthcoming. But this concerns only the proposal that the nomination should be voided. There is the more immediate issue that the closer knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented positions in order to arrive at a false consensus to delete. 69.193.187.30 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't feel like digging through the entire sixteen-year history of CfD to answer that question, but this is by no means the first tracking category to be listed at CfD. Some other such discussions that I can remember of the top of my head are Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 25#Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata (closed as delete), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (closed as no consensus), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (closed as keep), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 16#Category:Template:drugs.com link with non-standard subpage (closed as delete), and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description (closed as keep). That last one was in fact subject to a parallel discussion on the project page, and yet the discussion was considered valid and in-scope of CfD (even though there was consensus to keep), so this isn't some once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and your proposal to void the discussion as outside of CfD's scope is clearly unreasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] It could be that is not unreasonable at all. It seems rare, because bringing a nomination when a parallel discussion is going on seems rare. I notice that in the last example, many of the same "keep" arguments were made as were made here. The other examples of the categories that were deleted are not good. One was nominated by the editor who originally created the category and it was a 3-comment "discussion". The other one, which was relisted, involved the case of a category similar to 3 others. None of the examples seem like they needed to be brought here. They could have been resolved at the respective project pages. But this is an aside. First the fate of the closing must be decided. 64.18.9.198 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus at the same place (to run Monkbot 18)... Here, same place refers to Help talk:Citation Style 1 mentioned in the preceding sentence. This is not true. The consensus to run Monkbot 18 was the result of the normal WP:BRFA approval process at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 18. Help talk:CS1 was not the source of consensus to run Monkbot 18. —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Valid point. Struck those four words, but my general concern is still relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus (to run Monkbot 18)... is still not true. The Monkbot 18 consensus was not a local consensus. The consensus that allowed Monkbot 18 to run was determined at a properly constituted WP:BRFA (here). Bots do not run unless they have gained non-local consensus at WP:BRFA. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn We should be discouraging the parameters (actually, we should be removing them entirely,) the RfC was wrongly decided by giving too much weight to WP:ILIKEIT grounds over the proper concerns of the maintainers of the templates. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] This DRV is not the place to re-litigate the original RfC, or it's close, but only to determine whether the closure of the CfD that it is reviewing actually reflected consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Gee, SF, you expected the CFD closer to overturn the RFC result, after the first RFC close had already been overturned? :-P Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] The entire thing is a mess. The CFD assumes this is no longer a useful category, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you to User:Pppery for notifying me of this discussion. - jc37 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (as closer) - I suppose the first thing I should mention is that CfD (from very long standing consensus) stands for "Categories for discussion", not "Categories for deletion", as the IP nom seems to presume when stating: "...The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping..." - CfD can result in any number of results, such as redirecting, merging, category tree re-organisation, and even deprecation/removal from templates or modules which populate categories. And all but one person commenting in the Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RFC_reclosed also commented in the (later) CFD, so I presume the CfD would be considered the more recent discussion, and had more participants. For the rest, I'll defer to the close. - jc37 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I did not presume anything. The category was nominated for deletion by the nominator. There is no gray area here. It is either deleted, or something else... which would be one of non-deleted options, maybe? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse No real argument is presented for overturning this close, other than claims that CfD is the wrong venue, which I adequately refuted above, bare assertions that there is no consensus for the "delete" position without substantiation (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Not making any real points), the claim that [the rename position was] held by almost 50% of the participants (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Vote counts), and an attempt to re-litigate the underlying dispute (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#AfD-like comments) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Stating that "No real argument is presented for overturning this close" seems specious. Re-read the reasoning for the deletion review at the top of this thread. As I noted at the CfD page before, repeated here: Closing opinion However, this is WP:CFD, and probably not the place to determine how and where to clean up all of whatever may or may not have been left from an RFC (and its closing and re-closing). My observation If that is so, an opinion should not have been rendered. Is this the right forum or not? Notice, as it was pointed out by several people, that the category was already the subject of discussion at its project page. The nominator could have continued the discussion there. Instead it was brought to CfD. Closing opinion Those who suggest that this could be kept, mostly also agreed that it needed to be renamed/repurposed in light of the reverted RFC closure. Which, in category terms, essentially involves removal of the existing category, and re-creation under the new name. My observation This is an entirely novel definition of "renaming" (there is no "repurposing" as the sole purpose of tracking categories is to track). Renaming a category involves... editing the category name... removal and recreation would be absurd. Closing opinion And in the discussion below, there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed. My observation ??? Clarify? "Recreated" and "renamed" are not the same thing. Which one is the "no consensus" applying to? And if it applies to renaming, how is the "no consensus" evident? It is as valid, or more valid, to state that there is no consensus to delete. Closing opinion From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be. My observation Irrelevant. Unless there is a new guideline regarding the creation of tracking\maintenance categories that I am unaware of. The reasoning for this deletion review at the OP summarizes the above. As stated there, the consensus for deletion is manufactured. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] And in any case, the fate of this DRV will ultimately rest with an uninvolved administrator. The closer stated his/her opinion. I think it is a wrong opinion, and it was laid out at the OP and above. So here we are. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I'm afraid the discouraged-parameters-are-bad people are going to have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve so many edits. This is a big deal because the sheer number of edits that we're talking about is colossal, with the consequent impact on people's watchlists and attention spans. Volunteer time is our only scarce resource and this is spending a lot of it. Find another way.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] :-) And what exactly has this to do with this deletion review? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi, welcome to DRV! My contribution above consists of me endorsing the closer's decision and offering my view of how you should proceed. I have not engaged with the arguments in your nomination statement, and I'm not required to. Hope this clarifies.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you and you are welcome to DRV too! I am afraid your comment does not clariffy. In your original post you are referring to some parameters and edits. This DRV is primarily about whether the closer was correct in finding that the "delete" option has consensus. Anything to state on that? 66.65.114.61 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Yes indeed! I have said "endorse", by which I mean that I agree that the closer was correct in his finding.—S Marshall T/C 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Noted! 65.204.10.231 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm past caring about whether the category exists or not myself, but I do take issue with this close. (Maybe what I am looking for is clarification.) On the one hand, it says ...there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed. while on the other it says I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be. Jc37, could you please clarify what you mean in the first quote in context of the second? --Izno (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Happy to. The first was a No Consensus result from this CfD discussion. The second was to try to allow for a way forward, because an XfD close can sometimes be considered a bar to further immediate discussion. Another way to put it: "No prejudice against a follow-up RfC to determine whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.". - jc37 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] There is no policy, guideline, faq or information page in Wikipedia that proposes maintenance (or any) categories have to submit to review in order to be created. Interested editors may or may not discuss the particulars at the related maintenance talk page. This newfangled approach seems to be an attempt to make the absence of real consensus more palatable. 64.18.9.209 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I merely suggest that you might want to read WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] They do not apply here, as you noted in your closing opinion. This is about the closing of a contentious CfD, not about run-of-mill edit-revert cycles. And you still have not explained how you arrived at the decision that deletion has consensus. Well? 64.18.9.198 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn the part that prohibits maintenance tracking categories based on that RFC via normal discussion channels. The issue here was the wording of the "non neutral" term 'discouraged', not the existence of such tracking categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as this was brought up at the wrong venue and the close didn't appropriately consider this (note: I did support keeping the category, as well as deprecating the parameters. I really wish editors would stop getting in the way of efforts to maintain the complex citation templates we all take for granted). Elli (talk \| contribs) 04:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] CFD is the wrong venue for discussing categories? - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] This wasn't really the discussion of a category - it was the discussion of behavior of a template. Elli (talk \| contribs) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, CfD is the correct venue for nominating categories for sure, and the history of how the category came into being has been adequately summarized by the closer. Opposers did not disagree on the history, they just did not like the consequence. (In the CfD discussion I voted delete for another reason.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Is it possible to state positions that actually state something? Nobody disagrees that CfD is such a venue. But nobody has come up with a justification for nominating a tracking category that is already in the process of renaming, and has been rather expansively linked by the nominator to the result of an RfC. Nobody disagrees with how the category came into being. And it is true that opposers disagree not just with the consequences of nomination, but with the nomination itself. It is also true that this DRV is about the closer's opinion and the way the decision for deletion was explained. Any thoughts on that, currently relevant topic? 66.65.114.61 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] The category should have been discussed at CfD anyway. It can't be "in the process of renaming" elsewhere because renaming categories is one of the CfD processes. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] While CfD was a correct venue, I disagree that it is required to perform non-controversial restructuring of tracking categories. Given that this is clearly controversial, however, discussing it at CfD was appropriate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Good, more fog. This category, like all tracking categories, is hardly controversial. The flawed nomination made it so, by linking it (without a reason) to the 2nd RfC close. The first RfC close did not mandate any categories. The 2nd RfC close did not mandate their removal. What is controversial is the ridiculous CfD nomination. What is pertinent is the flawed CfD closing opinion which invented consensus to justify the ridiculous nomination. Get yer facts straight. 64.18.9.192 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] It does not matter that you think the category is uncontroversial, first because the discussion proves otherwise and second because renaming should be processed via CfD regardless whether it is uncontroversial or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] This discussion is about the closing opinion of a CfD nomination, not categories. That nomination had to with removing a category, ostensibly to align with an RfC consensus. But such action was never part of that consensus. As the CfD discussion showed, the CfD nomination was controversial, not the category. Also, nothing I have read about Wikipedia tracking categories obliges editors to use CfD in order to create them or rename them. The topic here remains the disputed closing decision of a controversial CfD nomination. 64.61.73.84 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Largely Endorse, but remove the clause "From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created". We have wasted more than enough time on this issue already. My (involved) reading of the discussion is that given the previous RFC closure, there is no legitimate reason to be tracking the unhyphenated versions of cite parameters in category space. @Jc37: what is your rationale for encouraging a follow-up discussion? The principle objection raised by the nominator of the CfD and a majority of those who supported it, is that the unhyphenated parameters are not to be tracked. The fact that this slipped in as part of an overturned RFC was not the principal reason. — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Note that said discussion is already happening at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Post-CFD-closure discussion about tracking parameters using categories. It appears people are not listening to my 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC) comment, and are about to make exactly that mistake yet again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, I had already noticed that discussion, and you're exactly right - it seems like its goal is to recreate the deleted template under a new name, in yet another bout of failure to drop sticks. If that happens, I predict that we'll end up back at CfD again, and the whole merry-go-round continues. It would be far better for the closer of this CfD here to make clear that the consensus is that the matter is done and dusted, and that there is no reason for unhyphenated parameters to be tracked in this way. — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Discussion about the CS1 modules happens at Help Talk:CS1 and always has. The discussion linked above is not about specific parameters; it is simply about category naming and is essentially mandated by this CFD closure. It would not be happening without this CFD closure, because the category deletion discussion had already been concluded, and revised code was in the sandbox modules, ready to be deployed. I just don't know what to say here. The "discouraged parameter" category, a novel and ill-advised coinage, was created only because of an RFC closure (from a discussion outside of Help Talk:CS1). Then the RFC was overturned, so a discussion was held and concluded at Help Talk:CS1 about how to remove that category. While that discussion was in progress, this CFD was started (another discussion outside of Help Talk:CS1). After that CS1 discussion had ended with a strong consensus, this CFD was closed with a statement that yet another discussion needed to happen. In short, proper discussions are happening at Help Talk:CS1, as they always have, and every time an editor starts a parallel discussion, RFC, CFD, or whatever, outside of that venue, the result always makes things worse, as warned about at WP:TALKFORK. These parallel discussions are delaying updates to the CS1 modules, including elimination of the very category that the parallel-discussion-advocates want to eliminate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (voted delete). The only relevant question is whether the closer correctly assessed consensus, and that they did. Some may disagree with the consensus, but that doesn't mean there wasn't consensus. There was strong consensus to delete, and while some participants advocated to rename, there wasn't consensus to rename. This is true numerically, and there doesn't seem to be any policy grounds to weigh some votes more than others. Bottom line: editors agreed the category should be deleted. That's the end of it. And of course the CfD closer wasn't going to overturn the second RFC result, especially since an earlier RFC close was already overturned. Another way to put this is if the close had been anything else other than "delete", that would have been a supervote. It seems that each and every argument against this CFD closure is actually arguing against the RFC result. Sometimes we think our colleagues get it wrong, but nevertheless, consensus prevails. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] The closer did not correctly assess consensus. The burden for consensus is on the nominating position. Numerically, the delete and keep opinions are equal or within one of each other. The way the closer produced the false consensus was by moving the "rename" or "keep/rename" opinions to the delete column. This was justified by the absurdity that rename=recreate which implies deletion first. Pretty crude manipulation. If the people who want to rename wanted to delete the category they would say so. Instead the closing manipulated and misrepresented their position to the opposite. Very uncool! So cool it. 65.204.10.231 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Even though I'd rather see the aliases removed, I'm not going to try to overturn consensus. As far as the deletion closure is concerned, I believe the decision and rationale where, on the whole, correctly decided. (Honestly, I decided after I voted that it may just be better to delete the category and let us start over if we want to do anything.) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Care to explain why you think the deletion closure was justified? Curious. 65.204.10.231 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] We said we wanted this category gone and to discuss the next steps on the main CS1 talk page; the closure let that happen. While I am miffed that such a CfD was made when WT:CS1 was already discussing what to do with the category, I don't think anyone could have closed it better with the same level of power. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Well this is a deletion decision review, it does not presume that the closure effected is a pre-ordained event. Neither is this a review of the CfD. Certain specific claims have been made that the closure should be overturned as misrepresenting consensus. That what this is for. I don't understand the statement I don't think anyone could have closed it better with the same level of power. ??? 65.204.10.232 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a CFD participant. There was a clear consensus not to have categories using this "discouraged" naming, the only part of this dispute that the CFD closure actually settled. Whether to have some kind of tracking category at all remains the subject of ongoing discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1, but that is not a reason for reopening the CFD and getting clarity from that discussion would not be helped by reopening the CFD. (Also, the IP bludgeoning of both the CFD and this DRV is unhelpful and trolly, but I hope it can be passed over without too much drama.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I would like to help: the category renaming as an option was already being discussed at the CS1 talk page before the CfD nomination. Also, the CfD nomination was about deleting the category, not renaming it. Finally, this DRV is about the closing of the CfD primarily (it is called a review of the decision) and only secondly, with whether the CfD nomination should have happened. It would be helpful if people stick to the facts of this DRV rather than imagining things. 64.18.9.201 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, since it was clearly the consensus view that was the right thing to do in the light of the decision reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention. That said, the concern that CfD was being used to force conclusion of a debate that was active at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and the closer could instead have intervened to ensure the CfD debate was kept open until that had become clearer. I don't think not waiting was wrong, and I certainly don't want want this to increase bureaucracy through rule inflation, but I personally like it when admins show in close statements that they have are aware of the option not to close if there is a reason that might be desirable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I believe you are in the wrong forum. This is not about an RfC, neither is it about a discussion at CfD. This is a review of a deletion decision, based on very specific claims of misinterpretation of consensus, and subsequent to that, the merits of the original nomination. Let's focus on topic. Your input will be appreciated. 50.74.165.202 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] He's arguing "Wrong venue" which is a fine argument at DRV. If CfD was the wrong place for the discussion, it would be reasonable to overturn. That's not what Charles is pushing for, but it's reasonable to fault the closer for not addressing the issue. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC I don't have a dog in this fight and my sense is that we are fighting over a molehill and wasting a lot of time doing so. That said, the closer's argument that rename was somehow the same as delete is utter BS and cannot be allowed to stand. Those !voting in such a way clearly considered deletion and didn't pick it. To get "delete" out of "keep but rename" is an abuse of discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment (not the nominating ip, am at work checking on my downtime) FWIW, I went thorough and counted the responses so they're actually listed somewhere in some way, there were 18 votes for delete and 17 for not-delete (5 for Keep/Rename, 8 for Rename and 4 for Keep). While I myself have been following this arguement since the start I don't want to pick one side or the other because honestly, I feel like there is a lot more important work to be done and I think it's embarassing the length that some of the editors on both sides of this arguement have gone to try to push their own opinions. The absolute ignoring of standard procedure is embarassing. --203.18.34.190 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Users are reminded to read WP:BLUDGEON and consider whether replying to every last comment will help their case. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your observations! Does constantly referring to this non-binding essay constitute bludgeoning? Do tell? There is no "case" to be made or to be helped. The facts of the closer's opinion are obvious, as is the methodology by which the opinion was arrived at. Every last comment will be replied to if it veers off topic, if (imo) it dissembles, embellishes or twists the facts or others' opinions. Not really concerned with "winning" anything. I believe I exposed the closing opinion's inconsistencies and the closer's conscious or unconscious bias. And this (and all the related prior discussions) brought out more of the same. This is fun. Now do with it as you will! 50.74.165.202 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter – No consensus. In a proportion of about 2 to 1, people here are of the view that the CfD was properly closed as "delete". The arguments on both sides are complicated (like the CfD and the facts it concerns) and are prima facie all mostly reasonable, which means that I have no basis on which to give either side more weight (assuming arguendo that as DRV closer I'd be allowed to do so). This means that we have no consensus to overturn the closure, which therefore remains in force by default. Sandstein 09:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Misinterpretation/misrepresentation of consensus 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and declare the original nomination beyond scope. As requester. The closing opinion misrepresented the consensus by claiming no means yes. The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping (with the same name or with another name). The closing opinion basically twists the "keep but rename" position to mean "delete as rename". In order to do this, a third, non-existent option is invented: "recreate and rename". Apart from the absurdity, this goes against both the letter and spirit of the "keep but rename" position, held by almost 50% of the participants.
There is no consensus for the "delete" position and the close should be overturned.

Note that the original nomination happened as the fate of the category was already being discussed at its project page. Apart from jumping the gun by bringing it here in the midst of discussion, there is the question of whether narrow tracking categories fall under the scope of CfD. The closing opinion with the novelty of "recreate=rename" effectively treats it as a "discouraged category". Following the closing revision, the nomination may be explicitly marked as void. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In case this is not clear, I was an active participant in the discussion, under various unregistered (IP) handles. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the CfD close as nominator, and perhaps some admin can reread the CfD and remind the IP (and some others) about WP:CIVIL and WP:BLUDGEON. No idea where the claim comes from that CfD shouldn't be the place to discuss the fate of hidden categories placed more than 1 million articles and for which no actual purpose is formulated ("tracking" is not a purpose, "tracking" is just another word for "categorizing" in this instance, the question is what one would do with these and why these are being singled out, considering that the discussion which lead to the creation of the cat was overturned and these parameters clearly indicated as perfectly acceptable ones which aren't discouraged, deprecated, or to be replaced by synonyms). Whatever the result of the DRV, closing the CfD as "void" would be totally wrong. Fram (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The closer wrote From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be. At the time of the close, that discussion had already happened at Help Talk:CS1, and the code to implement consensus-approved, neutrally named tracking categories had been implemented in the sandbox, allowing the modules to neutrally track any parameters of interest (as we have been doing for many years with parameters like |authors=). We had been waiting for this CFD to close before implementing the new neutral category names, in case there was some additional nuance that needed to be accounted for. Perhaps jc37 (the closer) could look at this linked discussion and see if it meets their criteria for such a discussion, and then formally endorse those new category names so that we don't have to go through all this again. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (I argued for deletion, so I'm involved) but I don't see that the close misrepresents the consensus at all. It's clear that this discussion came to a consensus that a category called "CS1 maint: discouraged parameter" should not exist. I also see a consensus that a category to track these redirects shouldn't exist under another name either - that consensus isn't as strong but it is still extant when you read the arguments presented rather than just look at who shouted loudest and/or most often. I haven't looked at the help talk discussion yet, but if that came to the consensus Jonesey95 says it did then we have a problem of parallel discussions coming to opposite consensuses (which is why having parallel discussions is usually a bad idea). I would argue that a well-attended CfD following a well-attended RfC that came to essentially the same conclusion is more likely to be the stronger consensus than one in an obscure location, but that's not the sort of thing one editor should be deciding alone (regardless of which editor that is). Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Thryduulf that parallel discussions are a bad idea. A discussion about removing the "discouraged parameter" category had already been in progress for more than 24 hours when the CFD was created, and clear consensus had already formed there that the category should be deleted. Hence, there was no reason for the CFD to exist at all (as I wrote at the CFD: ... currently being discussed at Help Talk:CS1. This discussion is moot; there is no disagreement at HT:CS1 that the current tracking category name needs to change.). The CFD and its subsequent close just muddied the waters. It should have been procedurally closed as redundant, IMHO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - CfD is the correct venue for disputing the existence of a category, and the CfD supersedes the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 per WP:CONLEVEL. This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus ~~at the same place~~ (to run Monkbot 18) that was shown to be inconsistent with broader community consensus, and the same mistake should not be made again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And exactly how many tracking categories have been previously discussed at CfD? How many of that set were brought here while their fate was being discussed at their project's page? How many of that smaller set have been nominated because of the opinion that their existence is somehow irrevocably tied to an RfC? Take your time answering, but some data would be forthcoming. But this concerns only the proposal that the nomination should be voided. There is the more immediate issue that the closer knowingly or unknowingly misrepresented positions in order to arrive at a false consensus to delete. 69.193.187.30 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel like digging through the entire sixteen-year history of CfD to answer that question, but this is by no means the first tracking category to be listed at CfD. Some other such discussions that I can remember of the top of my head are Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 25#Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata (closed as delete), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (closed as no consensus), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#Category:Coordinates on Wikidata (closed as keep), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 16#Category:Template:drugs.com link with non-standard subpage (closed as delete), and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description (closed as keep). That last one was in fact subject to a parallel discussion on the project page, and yet the discussion was considered valid and in-scope of CfD (even though there was consensus to keep), so this isn't some once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, and your proposal to void the discussion as outside of CfD's scope is clearly unreasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be that is not unreasonable at all. It seems rare, because bringing a nomination when a parallel discussion is going on seems rare. I notice that in the last example, many of the same "keep" arguments were made as were made here. The other examples of the categories that were deleted are not good. One was nominated by the editor who originally created the category and it was a 3-comment "discussion". The other one, which was relisted, involved the case of a category similar to 3 others. None of the examples seem like they needed to be brought here. They could have been resolved at the respective project pages. But this is an aside. First the fate of the closing must be decided. 64.18.9.198 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus at the same place (to run Monkbot 18)... Here, same place refers to Help talk:Citation Style 1 mentioned in the preceding sentence. This is not true. The consensus to run Monkbot 18 was the result of the normal WP:BRFA approval process at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 18. Help talk:CS1 was not the source of consensus to run Monkbot 18.
    
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid point. Struck those four words, but my general concern is still relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus (to run Monkbot 18)... is still not true. The Monkbot 18 consensus was not a local consensus. The consensus that allowed Monkbot 18 to run was determined at a properly constituted WP:BRFA (here). Bots do not run unless they have gained non-local consensus at WP:BRFA.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn We should be discouraging the parameters (actually, we should be removing them entirely,) the RfC was wrongly decided by giving too much weight to WP:ILIKEIT grounds over the proper concerns of the maintainers of the templates. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This DRV is not the place to re-litigate the original RfC, or it's close, but only to determine whether the closure of the CfD that it is reviewing actually reflected consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, SF, you expected the CFD closer to overturn the RFC result, after the first RFC close had already been overturned? :-P Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entire thing is a mess. The CFD assumes this is no longer a useful category, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to User:Pppery for notifying me of this discussion. - jc37 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as closer) - I suppose the first thing I should mention is that CfD (from very long standing consensus) stands for "Categories for discussion", not "Categories for deletion", as the IP nom seems to presume when stating: "...The discussion was between two positions: deleting vs keeping..." - CfD can result in any number of results, such as redirecting, merging, category tree re-organisation, and even deprecation/removal from templates or modules which populate categories.

And all but one person commenting in the Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RFC_reclosed also commented in the (later) CFD, so I presume the CfD would be considered the more recent discussion, and had more participants.

For the rest, I'll defer to the close. - jc37 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not presume anything. The category was nominated for deletion by the nominator. There is no gray area here. It is either deleted, or something else... which would be one of non-deleted options, maybe? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No real argument is presented for overturning this close, other than claims that CfD is the wrong venue, which I adequately refuted above, bare assertions that there is no consensus for the "delete" position without substantiation (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Not making any real points), the claim that [the rename position was] held by almost 50% of the participants (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Vote counts), and an attempt to re-litigate the underlying dispute (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#AfD-like comments) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that "No real argument is presented for overturning this close" seems specious. Re-read the reasoning for the deletion review at the top of this thread. As I noted at the CfD page before, repeated here:

Closing opinion

However, this is WP:CFD, and probably not the place to determine how and where to clean up all of whatever may or may not have been left from an RFC (and its closing and re-closing).

My observation

If that is so, an opinion should not have been rendered. Is this the right forum or not? Notice, as it was pointed out by several people, that the category was already the subject of discussion at its project page. The nominator could have continued the discussion there. Instead it was brought to CfD.

Closing opinion

Those who suggest that this could be kept, mostly also agreed that it needed to be renamed/repurposed in light of the reverted RFC closure. Which, in category terms, essentially involves removal of the existing category, and re-creation under the new name.

My observation

This is an entirely novel definition of "renaming" (there is no "repurposing" as the sole purpose of tracking categories is to track). Renaming a category involves... editing the category name... removal and recreation would be absurd.

Closing opinion

And in the discussion below, there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.

My observation

??? Clarify? "Recreated" and "renamed" are not the same thing. Which one is the "no consensus" applying to? And if it applies to renaming, how is the "no consensus" evident? It is as valid, or more valid, to state that there is no consensus to delete.

Closing opinion

From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.

My observation

Irrelevant. Unless there is a new guideline regarding the creation of tracking\maintenance categories that I am unaware of.

The reasoning for this deletion review at the OP summarizes the above. As stated there, the consensus for deletion is manufactured. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, the fate of this DRV will ultimately rest with an uninvolved administrator. The closer stated his/her opinion. I think it is a wrong opinion, and it was laid out at the OP and above. So here we are. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'm afraid the discouraged-parameters-are-bad people are going to have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve so many edits. This is a big deal because the sheer number of edits that we're talking about is colossal, with the consequent impact on people's watchlists and attention spans. Volunteer time is our only scarce resource and this is spending a lot of it. Find another way.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:-) And what exactly has this to do with this deletion review? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to DRV! My contribution above consists of me endorsing the closer's decision and offering my view of how you should proceed. I have not engaged with the arguments in your nomination statement, and I'm not required to. Hope this clarifies.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and you are welcome to DRV too! I am afraid your comment does not clariffy. In your original post you are referring to some parameters and edits. This DRV is primarily about whether the closer was correct in finding that the "delete" option has consensus. Anything to state on that? 66.65.114.61 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! I have said "endorse", by which I mean that I agree that the closer was correct in his finding.—S Marshall T/C 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted! 65.204.10.231 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm past caring about whether the category exists or not myself, but I do take issue with this close. (Maybe what I am looking for is clarification.)
On the one hand, it says
...there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.
while on the other it says
I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.
Jc37, could you please clarify what you mean in the first quote in context of the second? --Izno (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to. The first was a No Consensus result from this CfD discussion. The second was to try to allow for a way forward, because an XfD close can sometimes be considered a bar to further immediate discussion. Another way to put it: "No prejudice against a follow-up RfC to determine whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.". - jc37 01:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy, guideline, faq or information page in Wikipedia that proposes maintenance (or any) categories have to submit to review in order to be created. Interested editors may or may not discuss the particulars at the related maintenance talk page. This newfangled approach seems to be an attempt to make the absence of real consensus more palatable. 64.18.9.209 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I merely suggest that you might want to read WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They do not apply here, as you noted in your closing opinion. This is about the closing of a contentious CfD, not about run-of-mill edit-revert cycles. And you still have not explained how you arrived at the decision that deletion has consensus. Well? 64.18.9.198 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the part that prohibits maintenance tracking categories based on that RFC via normal discussion channels. The issue here was the wording of the "non neutral" term 'discouraged', not the existence of such tracking categories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as this was brought up at the wrong venue and the close didn't appropriately consider this (note: I did support keeping the category, as well as deprecating the parameters. I really wish editors would stop getting in the way of efforts to maintain the complex citation templates we all take for granted). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CFD is the wrong venue for discussing categories? - jc37 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't really the discussion of a category - it was the discussion of behavior of a template. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, CfD is the correct venue for nominating categories for sure, and the history of how the category came into being has been adequately summarized by the closer. Opposers did not disagree on the history, they just did not like the consequence. (In the CfD discussion I voted delete for another reason.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to state positions that actually state something? Nobody disagrees that CfD is such a venue. But nobody has come up with a justification for nominating a tracking category that is already in the process of renaming, and has been rather expansively linked by the nominator to the result of an RfC. Nobody disagrees with how the category came into being. And it is true that opposers disagree not just with the consequences of nomination, but with the nomination itself. It is also true that this DRV is about the closer's opinion and the way the decision for deletion was explained. Any thoughts on that, currently relevant topic? 66.65.114.61 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category should have been discussed at CfD anyway. It can't be "in the process of renaming" elsewhere because renaming categories is one of the CfD processes. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While CfD was a correct venue, I disagree that it is required to perform non-controversial restructuring of tracking categories. Given that this is clearly controversial, however, discussing it at CfD was appropriate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good, more fog. This category, like all tracking categories, is hardly controversial. The flawed nomination made it so, by linking it (without a reason) to the 2nd RfC close. The first RfC close did not mandate any categories. The 2nd RfC close did not mandate their removal. What is controversial is the ridiculous CfD nomination. What is pertinent is the flawed CfD closing opinion which invented consensus to justify the ridiculous nomination. Get yer facts straight. 64.18.9.192 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter that you think the category is uncontroversial, first because the discussion proves otherwise and second because renaming should be processed via CfD regardless whether it is uncontroversial or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the closing opinion of a CfD nomination, not categories. That nomination had to with removing a category, ostensibly to align with an RfC consensus. But such action was never part of that consensus. As the CfD discussion showed, the CfD nomination was controversial, not the category. Also, nothing I have read about Wikipedia tracking categories obliges editors to use CfD in order to create them or rename them. The topic here remains the disputed closing decision of a controversial CfD nomination. 64.61.73.84 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Largely Endorse, but remove the clause "From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created". We have wasted more than enough time on this issue already. My (involved) reading of the discussion is that given the previous RFC closure, there is no legitimate reason to be tracking the unhyphenated versions of cite parameters in category space. @Jc37: what is your rationale for encouraging a follow-up discussion? The principle objection raised by the nominator of the CfD and a majority of those who supported it, is that the unhyphenated parameters are not to be tracked. The fact that this slipped in as part of an overturned RFC was not the principal reason. — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that said discussion is already happening at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Post-CFD-closure discussion about tracking parameters using categories. It appears people are not listening to my 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC) comment, and are about to make exactly that mistake yet again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I had already noticed that discussion, and you're exactly right - it seems like its goal is to recreate the deleted template under a new name, in yet another bout of failure to drop sticks. If that happens, I predict that we'll end up back at CfD again, and the whole merry-go-round continues. It would be far better for the closer of this CfD here to make clear that the consensus is that the matter is done and dusted, and that there is no reason for unhyphenated parameters to be tracked in this way. — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the CS1 modules happens at Help Talk:CS1 and always has. The discussion linked above is not about specific parameters; it is simply about category naming and is essentially mandated by this CFD closure. It would not be happening without this CFD closure, because the category deletion discussion had already been concluded, and revised code was in the sandbox modules, ready to be deployed.
I just don't know what to say here. The "discouraged parameter" category, a novel and ill-advised coinage, was created only because of an RFC closure (from a discussion outside of Help Talk:CS1). Then the RFC was overturned, so a discussion was held and concluded at Help Talk:CS1 about how to remove that category. While that discussion was in progress, this CFD was started (another discussion outside of Help Talk:CS1). After that CS1 discussion had ended with a strong consensus, this CFD was closed with a statement that yet another discussion needed to happen. In short, proper discussions are happening at Help Talk:CS1, as they always have, and every time an editor starts a parallel discussion, RFC, CFD, or whatever, outside of that venue, the result always makes things worse, as warned about at WP:TALKFORK. These parallel discussions are delaying updates to the CS1 modules, including elimination of the very category that the parallel-discussion-advocates want to eliminate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (voted delete). The only relevant question is whether the closer correctly assessed consensus, and that they did. Some may disagree with the consensus, but that doesn't mean there wasn't consensus. There was strong consensus to delete, and while some participants advocated to rename, there wasn't consensus to rename. This is true numerically, and there doesn't seem to be any policy grounds to weigh some votes more than others. Bottom line: editors agreed the category should be deleted. That's the end of it. And of course the CfD closer wasn't going to overturn the second RFC result, especially since an earlier RFC close was already overturned. Another way to put this is if the close had been anything else other than "delete", that would have been a supervote. It seems that each and every argument against this CFD closure is actually arguing against the RFC result. Sometimes we think our colleagues get it wrong, but nevertheless, consensus prevails. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closer did not correctly assess consensus. The burden for consensus is on the nominating position. Numerically, the delete and keep opinions are equal or within one of each other. The way the closer produced the false consensus was by moving the "rename" or "keep/rename" opinions to the delete column. This was justified by the absurdity that rename=recreate which implies deletion first. Pretty crude manipulation. If the people who want to rename wanted to delete the category they would say so. Instead the closing manipulated and misrepresented their position to the opposite. Very uncool! So cool it. 65.204.10.231 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even though I'd rather see the aliases removed, I'm not going to try to overturn consensus. As far as the deletion closure is concerned, I believe the decision and rationale where, on the whole, correctly decided. (Honestly, I decided after I voted that it may just be better to delete the category and let us start over if we want to do anything.) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain why you think the deletion closure was justified? Curious. 65.204.10.231 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We said we wanted this category gone and to discuss the next steps on the main CS1 talk page; the closure let that happen. While I am miffed that such a CfD was made when WT:CS1 was already discussing what to do with the category, I don't think anyone could have closed it better with the same level of power. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is a deletion decision review, it does not presume that the closure effected is a pre-ordained event. Neither is this a review of the CfD. Certain specific claims have been made that the closure should be overturned as misrepresenting consensus. That what this is for. I don't understand the statement I don't think anyone could have closed it better with the same level of power. ??? 65.204.10.232 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a CFD participant. There was a clear consensus not to have categories using this "discouraged" naming, the only part of this dispute that the CFD closure actually settled. Whether to have some kind of tracking category at all remains the subject of ongoing discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1, but that is not a reason for reopening the CFD and getting clarity from that discussion would not be helped by reopening the CFD. (Also, the IP bludgeoning of both the CFD and this DRV is unhelpful and trolly, but I hope it can be passed over without too much drama.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to help: the category renaming as an option was already being discussed at the CS1 talk page before the CfD nomination. Also, the CfD nomination was about deleting the category, not renaming it. Finally, this DRV is about the closing of the CfD primarily (it is called a review of the decision) and only secondly, with whether the CfD nomination should have happened. It would be helpful if people stick to the facts of this DRV rather than imagining things. 64.18.9.201 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, since it was clearly the consensus view that was the right thing to do in the light of the decision reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention. That said, the concern that CfD was being used to force conclusion of a debate that was active at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and the closer could instead have intervened to ensure the CfD debate was kept open until that had become clearer. I don't think not waiting was wrong, and I certainly don't want want this to increase bureaucracy through rule inflation, but I personally like it when admins show in close statements that they have are aware of the option not to close if there is a reason that might be desirable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are in the wrong forum. This is not about an RfC, neither is it about a discussion at CfD. This is a review of a deletion decision, based on very specific claims of misinterpretation of consensus, and subsequent to that, the merits of the original nomination. Let's focus on topic. Your input will be appreciated. 50.74.165.202 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's arguing "Wrong venue" which is a fine argument at DRV. If CfD was the wrong place for the discussion, it would be reasonable to overturn. That's not what Charles is pushing for, but it's reasonable to fault the closer for not addressing the issue. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC I don't have a dog in this fight and my sense is that we are fighting over a molehill and wasting a lot of time doing so. That said, the closer's argument that rename was somehow the same as delete is utter BS and cannot be allowed to stand. Those !voting in such a way clearly considered deletion and didn't pick it. To get "delete" out of "keep but rename" is an abuse of discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not the nominating ip, am at work checking on my downtime) FWIW, I went thorough and counted the responses so they're actually listed somewhere in some way, there were 18 votes for delete and 17 for not-delete (5 for Keep/Rename, 8 for Rename and 4 for Keep).

While I myself have been following this arguement since the start I don't want to pick one side or the other because honestly, I feel like there is a lot more important work to be done and I think it's embarassing the length that some of the editors on both sides of this arguement have gone to try to push their own opinions. The absolute ignoring of standard procedure is embarassing. --203.18.34.190 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Users are reminded to read WP:BLUDGEON and consider whether replying to every last comment will help their case. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your observations! Does constantly referring to this non-binding essay constitute bludgeoning? Do tell? There is no "case" to be made or to be helped. The facts of the closer's opinion are obvious, as is the methodology by which the opinion was arrived at. Every last comment will be replied to if it veers off topic, if (imo) it dissembles, embellishes or twists the facts or others' opinions. Not really concerned with "winning" anything. I believe I exposed the closing opinion's inconsistencies and the closer's conscious or unconscious bias. And this (and all the related prior discussions) brought out more of the same. This is fun. Now do with it as you will! 50.74.165.202 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.