Shortcut

Should SmallCat continue to be a guideline[edit]

There is consensus to deprecate SMALLCAT. Often citing the 26 August 2023 Arbitration Committee decision, participants expressed that deprecating the guideline would be significantly more beneficial than maintaining it. They argued that the current guideline is ambiguous and in contradiction with policies such as WP:CRYSTALBALL. Some editors commented that a category with very few elements and no other value should be deleted (and often is), and other editors generally agreed with this, but they did not concur with the concern that deprecating the guideline would hinder the removal of such frivolous categories. Participants pointed out that other guidelines cover low-quality categories, that contributors would still have full discretion to make arguments for their deletion, and that there is nothing preventing the creation of a new guideline if needed. As such, we recommend a follow-up RfC for determining a potential replacement to the guideline, such as Merge for Now.

(non-admin closure)

Frostly (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FormalDude (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should SmallCat continue to be a guideline or be marked historical? - jc37 08:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Based upon how controversial this guideline has been over the years, I think it is worth discussing whether part or all of this guideline should be deprecated.

For transparency, I'm honestly not sure, but I think that community discussion on this could be productive.

One possible option could also be to just deprecate this in favour of WP:OC#NARROW.

I welcome others' thoughts. - jc37 06:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - So I have spent some time going through category discussions over the last decade or so. Several things stood out to me from CfD discussions which referenced WP:SMALLCAT - First, many of these had issues under other WP:OC issues, such as WP:NARROWCAT, or WP:OCYEAR, or WP:OCEPON, or WP:TOPTEN. But since smallcat was available to say, people just said that. And second, that a lot of these were very contentious due to "being part of 'something'". How effective is this if someone creates a tree of 50 subcats all with less than 10 members? Technically, it has been argued, the tree should be allowed per this guideline. Even though it may fall afoul of other guidelines. And the reverse is true, as well. If that tree was valid in everything but "member count" should we be deleting it for that reason alone? And finally, these discussions quite often have turned into behavioural discussions (about the "act" of adding or removing a page to or from category, rather than looking at the category itself). And by saying "small" (which, I'll - mea culpa - take responsibility for adding[1]), human nature wants to ask "how small is small"? I think we are unnecessarily creating problems with this. And I think the rest of WP:OC covers this well enough that we can probably deprecate this as a "general rule". I suggest dropping an "historical" template on it and moving on. - jc37 06:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another issue with this, is that SMALLCAT was often about assessing quantity over quality. And that's probably not the direction we should be going. - jc37 06:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jc37 Well said! I agree with you. And I don't blame you or the others at the time for trying to come up with some criterion to address these issues. You were pioneers. You didn't do everything perfectly the first time around, and you didn't have to. The fact that most CFD criteria from 2006-ish are still around is a testament to how well you folks figured this stuff out pretty well from the beginning.
SMALLCAT just wasn't the best criterion that was developed, and it appears to have taken the community almost 17 years to fully realise its fundamental flaws after many laudable attempts at trying to make it work for such a long time. I think we are close to finding a good solution for a proper replacement, and I'm glad you're on board with us. NLeeuw (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: Notified WT:WikiProject Categories of this discussion. A smart kitten (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you : ) - jc37 11:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it stands, the Arbcom unanimously concluded today that reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. So those two phrases are no longer viable as they currently are, because there is no consensus about what they mean and how they should be applied. Thus, they should either be amended or removed. At Wikipedia:Merge for now#4. Address "part of large scheme" ambiguity and Wikipedia:Merge for now#5. Address "potential for growth" ambiguity, I've outlined the pro-amend and pro-remove arguments. I'm open to be persuaded, but currently I find myself on the pro-remove side in both questions. But if both are removed, there won't be much text to SMALLCAT left, will there? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added Wikipedia:Merge for now#Subcategories of Category:Works by creator and Wikipedia:Merge for now#6. Address lack of "subcategories of Category:Works by creator" justification. I complained about the arbitrariness of this sentence at ANI, but at the time nobody responded. We should critically examine it. My conclusion is that it makes no sense, and should be removed. Combined with the removal of the bad examples of no potential for growth, and the "potential for growth" and "scheme" phrases, that leaves only the following text:
Examples: Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor
Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members.
Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time.
Apart from the only example which is still correct, that doesn't leave many. Even something seemingly obvious like "Capitals of Fooland" may be more complicated than they seem, if that may include historical capitals of Fooland and not just the 1 city currently designated as the capital. Even a country which was founded yesterday may decide to move its capital tomorrow, and again next year, and again next year. Of course there is "potential for growth". Is it "realistic"? Well, lots of countries are currently moving their capitals as we speak, so in that sense, of course it is realistic. There are almost no categories which by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, simply because we've got no WP:CRYSTALBALL and can never say "never" about lots of things.
Finally, the last sentence just lacks any justification now. Why should we keep such a category? Just because the text says so? And what is "only a small number"? As long as this is not defined as a numerical threshold, this phrase can once again be exploited as a catch-all clause that can be employed to filibuster any CfD. That's not helpful.
For the first time, I'm leaning towards a complete abolition of the entire WP:SMALLCAT guideline, and its replacement with a new Merge For Now guideline. Nevertheless, we need to resolve the WP:GAMING risk first if we want to make it successful. I suppose one easy practical way to reduce that risk is for all CFD regulars to install the User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer.js script. That way we can detect it if anyone has been stuffing or ECOOPing a category in order to game the nomination. This script didn't exist back in December 2006. It does now. We may not be able to prevent all gaming, but we can more easily detect it. What do you think, @Jc37? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CFD discussions were at a low ebb already and we just lost two regular contributors. I attribute this to not putting cats on mobile view but, whatever the reason, one !vote is often enough to sway the outcome anyway without bothering to game the system. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean Twinkle doesn't work on mobile view? That is indeed a bit of an annoyance. But CatChangesViewer does work in mobile view. For example, I can see on my phone right now that Category:Joseline Hernandez songs, Category:Beauty Pageant and Category:Non-fiction works by L. Ron Hubbard were all recently emptied out of process (ECOOPed). NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: No, I mean that categories don't show on the bottom of articles in mobile view so mobile users are less likely to care (or even know about) cats. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RevelationDirect Oh! That's actually a great point. Sometimes I completely forget that articles don't show categories at the bottom in mobile view. Because I can take part in CFD discussions and navigate categories in mobile view without that being an issue. It usually only becomes an issue when I want to nominate a category using Twinkle; then I need to switch to desktop view. NLeeuw (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small with no potential for growth (ambiguous per Arbcom)

  • Examples:
Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor,
Catalan-speaking countries, (theoretically overturned on 3 May 2023, see example no. #2 (NLeeuw)),
Schools in Elmira, New York (invalid per WP:CRYSTALBALL, see example no. #3 (Marcocapelle))
unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, (ambiguous per Arbcom)
such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country. ('"Songs by artist" became really contentious' per jc37 evidence)
  • Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; (ambiguous per Arbcom)
a category which does have realistic potential for growth, (ambiguous per Arbcom)
such as a category for holders of a notable political office, (invalid per WP:CRYSTALBALL, see "potential for growth" ambiguity (NLeeuw))
may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. (ambiguous per Arbcom)
I would really appreciate it if someone could help me make sense of... well... the above. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think that it is that ambiguous, or controvertial.
A lot of what you marked as "ambiguous per arbcom" is just relating to what constitutes "realistic potential for growth"; That needs an addendum for clarification. The "small" portion is also arguably imprecise, but that exists in several category guidelines and is a much larger issue than the RFC here.
The "Crystal" stuff I disagree with, many categories will by definition only have no scope for expansion. For example, Category:First man on the moon , by definition, can only have one guy. Not crystalball.
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_20#Category:Countries_and_territories_by_language I didnt understand, that had nothing to do with smallcat - That discussion was about removing a different ambiguity, unlike the article given as example.
WP:OCEPON line is just clarifying that this guideline doesnt clash with others, again necessary to ensure compatibility with other guidelines. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the Catalan-speaking countries example, I'm sorry that I haven't been clear. I should have sent you a direct link to Wikipedia:Merge for now#Potential for growth example no. #2. There, I explain why.
The "Crystal" stuff I disagree with, many categories will by definition only have no scope for expansion. For example, Category:First man on the moon , by definition, can only have one guy. Not crystalball. It would be nice if it were that easy. It's theoretically entirely possible to create a List of first man/person on the moon by nationality as its main article, and put all people on that list in the category. So far, all have been Americans, so it would have only 1 item.
  • Is there potential for growth? Of course there is! It's possible for lots of space programmes from around the world to put people (masculine or otherwise) who do not own a United States passport on the Moon. (I wouldn't be surprised if a Chinese or Indian astronaut sets foot on the Moon in the next 10 years).
  • Is it realistic? Of course it is! Lots of countries and even private companies are already operating in space, and there are even emergent plans to colonise the Moon.
  • Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not. But that didn't hold back lots of Wikipedians from opposing a deletion/merger of categories based on the potential that something could happen at some point in the future. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't say anything about when this growth should occur, so people can always say someday, maybe, perhaps, possibly, potentially, per potential.
And that is what makes this "realistic potential for growth" clause fail WP:CRYSTALBALL. It relies on evidence that does not yet exist. It relies on Wikipedia pages that don't yet exist. It allows editors to speculate endlessly about how that evidence and those Wikipedia pages will someday maybe perhaps possibly potentially be produced, so that the smallcat might then be expanded, and therefore shouldn't be merged/deleted until that extremely dubious and uncertain point in the future. It ignores stuff like WP:WTAF. This obstructs the WP:CFD process, the fundamental purpose of which is to ease navigation between properly populated categories. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Okay, now the song MAN ON THE MOON: The sounds of Apollo 11 remixed is in my head. NLeeuw (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll grant that the criterion isn't worded as well or as clearly as it could be, but it isn't a fundamentally invalid concept.
    Every category technically has a theoretical potential for future growth — the relevant question is how immediate the prospects are. For instance, if only one past or present mayor of a town or city has an article, then we don't already need a dedicated "Mayors of [City]" category for that one person just because it's theoretically possible that other mayors might get articles someday — the only legitimate basis for creating that category now would be either (a) five keepable articles about NPOL-passing mayors of that city already exist today, or (b) five keepable articles about NPOL-passing mayors of that city will exist within the next few days because somebody's actively working on that project as we speak. "Anything might be possible someday" is not good enough: either five articles already exist and somebody just overlooked actually filing most of them in it, or five articles will exist before a standard-length CFD discussion on the category would even conclude.
    But that dedicated category's lack of current existence does not pull the one mayor out of any relevant category trees, because he can still go in Category:People from City and Category:Mayors of places in Higher Entity regardless of whether there's a "Mayors of That Specific City" subcategory cross-referencing those two things or not.
    Conversely, however, a tree like Category:Albums by artist should, at least in theory, have every single article about any album under it — it's called "Albums by artist", not "Albums by artists who have recorded >n albums" — but an album fails to be under that tree at all if the existence of its relevant "Artist albums" category is denied, because there isn't any middle ground between "this category can exist even if there's only one album" and "this album just can't be found in this tree at all".
    In other words, it's really a question of "is there an alternative (e.g. mayors in state/province), so that the topic is still in all the relevant category trees regardless of whether this smallcat exists or not", or "is there no alternative, such that if this smallcat doesn't exist then the topic gets pulled completely out of a category tree it needs to be in, and thus the smallcat has to exist because that's the only way to get it into a necessary tree at all".
    Category intersections also need to be considered carefully: for example, Category:Norwegian satirical films only has four articles in it at present, and thus could technically be argued as flunking SMALLCAT, but erasing it wouldn't just entail upmerging the contents to Category:Satirical films, it would also entail upmerging the contents to Category:Norwegian films, which is a category with so many articles under it that it needs to be a strict container category that only contains subcategories and has no individual articles filed directly in the parent at all. Which means the country-genre subcategory needs to exist regardless of size, because all of the relevant genre categories existing the moment n=1 is the only way to keep the Norwegian container category properly containerized.
    So, sure, SMALLCAT could absolutely use some rewording for added clarity about what it actually means — but it's not an inherently invalid concept, it's just a concept that needs to be expressed better. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Bearcat - I'll ask you what I asked someone above - Please compare the text to WP:NARROWCAT. And tell me what you think. - jc37 17:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That certainly crosses over with some of the SMALLCAT issue (e.g. it clearly covers off the mayors example I gave), but not all of it (it doesn't so clearly cover off what I said about albums by artist). So it strikes me as a useful complement to a rewrite of SMALLCAT, but not as an outright replacement for SMALLCAT across the board. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Bearcat - Ok, so from your assessment of NARROW, what is left from SmallCat, that you feel is not covered in Narrow, that you think needs text written in guideline form? - jc37 18:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Bearcat, welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure I understand the idea that if Category:Norwegian satirical films is upmerged to Category:Norwegian films, the latter all of the sudden needs to be a strict container category that only contains subcategories and has no individual articles filed directly in the parent at all. How so? The name is just "Category:Norwegian films", not "Category:Norwegian films by genre". The latter should indeed be a containercat, but why the former? WP:DIFFUSE says the opposite: It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category. NLeeuw (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because there are hundreds or thousands of Norwegian films with articles, meaning that a fully populated Category:Norwegian films category would be far, far too large to be browsable or maintainable at all. And it's also not a tree where only partial diffusion is desirable, because making it partially diffused would still interfere with the process of being able to maintain it properly: if there are 50 articles that have to be left directly in that category due to lack of any potential subcategory for them, then that's 50 articles' worth of time I have to waste trying to find the five other pages that got unnecessarily thrown into that category even though they are diffusable into subcategories. So as a person who regularly works with fixing film-related categorization errors, I need the base country films category to always be as close as feasibly possible to being completely empty and container-only, precisely so that any errors that need fixing can be caught right away without requiring me to invest hours and hours into investigating a mixture of pages that need diffusion with pages that have to be left where they are due to a lack of diffusability. So the Norwegian films category has to be either directly populated with all Norwegian films, which is not viable at all due to the numbers, or fully diffused with no individual films in it, because I have to be able to wham my way through any cleanup in the absolute shortest amount of time possible. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (non-CfD regular comment; summoned by bot) I think part of the problem with SMALLCAT is that there is an aversion to temporary deletion of small categories. The purpose of categories it to aid navigation. If Category:Foo and Category:Bar have two members each, they are both (in the current moment) equally useful (read: useless) for navigation. That Category:Foo will have 102 articles next year is irrelevant to its present utility. If Category:Bar should be deleted, so should Category:Foo; the latter can be recreated when it actually will contain 102 articles (at that point "the reason for the deletion no longer applies"). If the category was in fact small, the added work of repopulating it (i.e. as opposed to adding the category to the newly created pages, which will always be required) is trivial.
    Additionally, I agree with Bearcat above, especially his Norwegian satirical films example. With all that said, keep the guideline. But remove "with no potential for growth". HouseBlastertalk 18:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think this is the key difference. All the other editing guidelines are about the nature of categories that are inherently not beneficial while SMALLCAT is about the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @HouseBlaster I agree with most of what you say, but I don't understand the Norwegian satirical films example (see my comment above); could you explain why you think that? We also agree on removing with no potential for growth (and by extension which does have realistic potential for growth), but what about unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme? Remove as well? Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete or Mark Historical - A guideline that is usually misunderstood is a guideline that should not be kept. The underlying causes of the ArbCom case were, first, multiple editors read it, and thought that they understood it, because they were too lazy to finish reading it, and, second, BrownHairedGirl attacked the other editors, because she was right on what the guideline said, and she was wrong in personally attacking other editors, and they were wrong on the guideline, but had the right to be reasoned with respectfully. This guideline was too often misunderstood. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nobody was right on what the guideline said; there is no consensus on what it says: reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Proposed decision#SmallCat. It is misleading and not very nice towards one's fellow editors to suggest that multiple editors read it, and thought that they understood it, because they were too lazy to finish reading it and therefore it was usually misunderstood as if there is only 1 correct conclusion which all "non-lazy" editors could possibly reach (namely, the conclusion one personally just so happens to agree with), because reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If these categories cannot be created until they have "n" identified members, they are unlikely to be created: am I expected to do a search on "University of Borås" to identify other alumni? Or are those people not to be categorised by their alma mater? PamD 07:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I clicked on "What links here" and was able to get the alumni category up to 4 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Ambiguous and contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 23:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to express my support for the proposal to deprecate the SmallCat guideline. After carefully considering the discussions and arguments put forth, it is evident that this guideline has been a source of controversy and ambiguity over the years.
    The recent ruling by the Arbcom, which highlighted the ambiguous nature of several elements within the SmallCat guideline, reinforces the need for reevaluation. While the guideline attempts to address categories with few members, it often leads to disputes and speculative arguments about potential future growth, hindering the efficiency of our categorization processes.
    Furthermore, we already have other guidelines like WP:NARROWCAT that cover similar territory in a more precise manner. Therefore, I believe that deprecating the SmallCat guideline and relying on existing guidelines will help streamline category discussions and reduce unnecessary disputes.
    Let's move forward by marking SmallCat as historical and encouraging editors to adhere to more clear and established guidelines. This will not only simplify our categorization processes but also promote transparency and consensus within our community. Edificio Barro (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for comment on replacement to SmallCat guideline[edit]

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Snowball consensus against. (involved non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 21:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    Should the "SmallCat" guideline be replaced with "Small with potential for growth": Unless there are other issues or concerns other than quantity (for example, quality)—in which case the regular consensus process applies—a category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth (for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis).[a]? Thinker78 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @A smart kitten, RevelationDirect, Michael Bednarek, CapnJackSp, Bearcat, HouseBlaster, Robert McClenon, PamD, Tryptofish, Pppery, Edward-Woodrow, John M Wolfson, LaundryPizza03, InvadingInvader, Waggers, Levivich, Queen of Hearts, SnowFire, Amakuru, Edificio Barro, Siroxo, and QuicoleJR: pinging participants in the previous RfC. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thinker78, could you please clarify what you mean by photography of the ship? Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I second your question; it's quiet unclear to me why this question needs a request for comment. Mason (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I corrected the entry. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Survey[edit]

    Add your numbered (#) Yes, No, Support, Oppose, Neutral. For more efficiency please replies and further discussion in threaded discussion section.

    1. Support: This deletion of useful categories that are small right this moment but likely to grow is getting tiresome. The snooker category got hit with that earlier this month, and the WP:SNOOKER reaction to it was uniformly negative, with the upmerging and deletion tagging undone rapidly. However, this appears to have recently been demoted and marked ((Historical)), so editing it may not be useful. Whatever guideline wording somewhere else is still being used to delete small categories is probably a better target for revision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. Oppose: Per @Jc37:'s answer to Thinker78 on 7 November [2]. This is just a rewording of the Smallcat guideline that has been deprecated. WP:MFN is our best approach; we should work on that as a replacement of Smallcat. NLeeuw (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      PS: That the 'potential for growth' is "measurable" makes it no less WP:CRYSTALBALL. Unless we can fill a category right now with a reasonable number of items (preferably 5-10), it's not responsible to the rest of the community and especially our readers to be creating categories with just 1 item, and waiting until the cows come home for it to be filled with other items. It does not aid navigation, which is the core purpose of categorisation. NLeeuw (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3. Oppose per NLeeuw. While the close of the previous RfC recommended a followup RfC, I do not believe the intent was simply to reword the deprecated guideline. —siroχo 09:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4. Oppose per NLeeuw. I think that we do need something, but I believe this solution doesn't solve the problem. I think something like WP:MFN would be excellent, once the details are hammered out. Mason (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5. Oppose. This is just regurgitated SMALLCAT, and doesn't solve anything. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    6. Oppose This is not much better than the guideline we just deprecated. I do not see how this is helpful. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7. Oppose. At least what is presented here is incomprehensible, and should at least be presented in terms of what the actual new language would be. The deprecated guideline called for deletion of categories that were small with no potential for growth. As written, this seems to call for the deletion of small categories with potential for growth, but such categories really should be kept. I don't know what this proposal is trying to say, and that is reason enough to oppose it. I suggest that the proposer first withdraw this, and then rewrite it with the context of what the new guideline will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    8. Oppose. Thanks for the ping. I agree with the quote of jc37 above, that we should focus on quality rather than quantity, and with Siroxo that we should not simply try to reword the old version. If something has the potential for growth, there's no need to identify it as such, and if it has no potential for growth, that should be closely examined on a case-by-case basis, without leaning on some sort of shorthand. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    9. Oppose and highly recommend that Thinker78 consider withdrawing this proposal (with the consent of SMcCandlish), else someone close this per WP:SNOW. There needs to be some more RFCBEFORE: MFN is a promising start; that, not an alternative wording of SMALLCAT, is the best way forward.
      Separately, why are we numbering our !votes if they are not segregated by position? HouseBlastertalk 23:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If a WP:SNOWBALL is forming, then no assent from me is needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    10. Oppose Bringing back the worst part of Smallcat is not a good idea. "Growth potential" obviously led to sincere disagreement amongst editors, although I think the ArbComm mess had more to do with some history between specific editors with past history editing the same Irish articles. The larger problems is that "growth potential" goes against the whole purpose of categories which aid navigation between articles that exist; categories do nothing aid navigation to articles that do not exist. WP:CFD seems to be going fine relying on WP:NARROWCAT in any case but WP:MFN might make those discussions even better. - RevelationDirect (talk)

    Threaded discussion[edit]

    Section for more thorough discussion and replies. If you are replying to an opinion in the survey section, add its number for more convenience.

    Regarding their comment that, "We should be looking at quality, not quantity", precisely editors are deleting categories due to quantity, because they have too few entries (see SMcCandlish point).
    Regarding your comment that it is a rewording, it is as much as rewording as changing yes to maybe or to no is a rewording, because if you notice in the previous RfC that deprecated SmallCat, many editors didn't want it because in their opinion it was a tool to delete categories. If you notice, my proposal is the opposite, it is to keep categories that otherwise would be deleted arbitrarily only because few entries.
    About "other guidelines seem to be addressing this just fine", editors in the previous RfC pointed out that this guideline is not covered in other guidelines. Can you point out one guideline that addresses deleting categories because it has few members? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This has been contentious since its initial creation at OCAT. As noted already, sometimes it's better to not have a guideline than to try to suggest that a contentious one has consensus.
    There are plenty of other policies and guidelines to look at, than to try to shoehorn this again so soon after the RfC's closure.
    You also should ping everyone in the previous RfC, if you're going to try a "round 2". - jc37 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. NLeeuw (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ See WP:CRYSTALBALL
    2. ^ I am currently involved in that discussion but it was the most at-hand example
    3. ^ yes, may, as I don't know if other editors also misinterpreted it
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    More