Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive 4

message: Can all agree with the use of soft redirects for these category titles? If "Fooish things" isn't the category title, it would point the user to "Things of Foo" and likewise, "Beings of Foo" would point the user to "Fooish beings", whichever the case may be.
For an example of a soft redirect see: :Category:Authors which has a soft redirect to :Category:Writers.  There is already the template  which sets this up.  Even if we come up with the most brilliant standards for determining category titles, people will categorize things wrong, or look in the wrong place.  Soft redirects just help point people in the right direction.  As an added bonus, there will be less CfD discussions about the same fooin' categories time and time again. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps we can all agree with this? 

message: Can I suggest we use the single transferable vote system? In this, you rank your options in order of preference 1 to N. At close of poll, the votes are initially assigned according to 1st preference votes. The option with the fewest 1st preference votes is elimiinated and its votes distributed according to the second choice votes. Then the option with the fewest total votes is eliminated and its votes redistribuyted according to 3rd choices etc etc. Eventually, one option will emerge the winner.
For this system, I would suggest simply a majority among the final two options is enough for adoption since the various preference routes should be more than enough to satisfy people's various objections and the need for consensus. Note that consensus is not only "getting 70%" but also having the opposition to the chosen proposal being content-enough with it — this STV system would probably achieve that.
It'd be harder to count the votes at the end, but I'd be happy enough to do it, given a few hours. The voting might also be fractionally more complex, but not very much so. -Splash 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might need a little time to digest this idea before I can form an opinion. Maybe before deciding on this, it'd be good for us to take a few days to review the grouping of consistent categories. Maurreen (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A different voting system?

message: For those advocating speedy renaming, how would you allow for any flexibility or evolution? Maurreen (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that sounds good. Maurreen (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy renaming

message: I think this is what have agreement on so far:
#Any cats that go to speedy renaming will have two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to any standard decided upon. At that point, the cat goes up for discussion.
#Any poll would need a 70-30 ratio for such a standard to be set.
#Polling about consistent categories would be done before polling about inconsistent categories. Maurreen (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts:
#I think you've misunderstood this point.  It won't allow gaming in that way, as a reason why has not been stated.  You would have to state something like American Revolution should be exempt from this naming system as Revolution in the United States is incorrect and Revolution of the colonies of Great Britain (it might have been the UK) in North America against the Crown is too long.  It's not enough to say my favourite category should be an exception without a reason, and such a vote can be disregarded.  Note also that we should make some mention that this standard will over-ride common usage, so that the reason can not simply be one of common usage. 
#That's slightly negative.  It behhoves us to find a middle ground we can go out and sell and achieve consensus on.  I'm not convinced we don't fundamentally agree, and it's worth finding the areas we do agree on.
#Yep. Hiding  talk 07:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, speedy renaming needs to be discussed further. Maurreen (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of consensus on procedure so far

message: Here are ideas raised so far for exceptions to speedy renaming for cats that don't conform to whatever standards are decided: 
#Any cats that go to speedy renaming will have two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to any standard decided upon. At that point, the cat goes up for discussion. Inappropriate reasons include "I want." Appropriate reasons include factual accuracy and length.
##Common usage?
##Other appropriate or inappropriate reasons?
#If there is a no-consensus outcome after the 2-day period that only then should it get the remaining 5 days (or maybe the full 7.
#Within two days, there must be an objection (or maybe an objection with an "appropriate" reason) to the speedy by at least two users (or some other number to be determined). Each of these users must have been registered before the speedy nomination was made. (or some other requirement to prevent sockpuppetry) Maurreen (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy renaming 2

message: I am taking an indefinite break. Maurreen (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I will have to miss the fun

message: Okay, just to push things along, here's a proposed poll question.  I'm not sure about a suffrage restriction, do we need one?  If so, I'd suggest users registered prior to the 17th July, as that was when this current debate was kickstarted at the village pump.  
:Wikipedia has a large number of areas where the topics are categorized by country.  These frequently appear on WP:CFD with a request to rename them for consistency.  After much discussion and a straw poll, it has been decided to begin seeking consensus on consistent naming of categories by sections.  Therefore, this poll seeks to codify the standard already inherent within the following categories and subcategories there-of, and also make such a standard a criteria for speedy rename, with the following condition:
:* Any categories that go to speedy renaming to be standardised to the agreed format will have a two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to said standard. If there is valid objection to the speedy by at least two users, each of these users having been registered before the speedy nomination was made, the category gets the remaining 5 days. Inappropriate reasons include "I want." Appropriate reasons include factual accuracy and length.
:The group of categories we seek consensus on standardising are as follows:
:*:category:Companies by country
:*:category:Demographics by country
:*:category:Economies by country
:*:category:Foreign relations by country
:*:category:Government by country
:*:category:Heads of state by country
:*:category:History by country
:*:category:Languages by country
:*:category:Manufacturing companies by country
:*:category:Militaries by country
:*:category:Politics by country
:*:category:Postal systems by country
:*:category:Lists of subnational entities
:*:category:Weapons by country
:The standard we are seeking to apply is foo of country, a standard already inherent within these categories through common usage of wikipedians.
:This is a binary poll to last 10 days and seeks a 70% suppport consensus with the question having been voted on by a minimum of 15 users.  If the poll is succesful the standard will be listed at Wikipedia:Categorization#General_naming_conventions.
What's everyone's thoughts?
:We should separate the speedy-rename procedure from the standardisation proposal in terms of how it is presented. People might support one part of this proposal, but not the other. Apart from that, I think I'm happy enough with the phrasing, and things, but wonder if the suffrage might be relaxed a little — we're talking more than a month of contributions. That's not unreasonable I suppose, but what about being registered prior to the first poll: it would seem unfair to allow a hypotheical new user to vote in that one but not this. -Splash 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to edit the proposed question to how you'd like to see it.  That'll be the best way to get it where we want it, won't it?  As for suffrage, yes, that sounds reasonable.  That was the 4th of August, off the top of my head. Hiding  talk 22:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know.  I'm half of the opinion that they should just be standardised and then have the requests for rename from the standard debated upon WP:CFD. We could look through all the categories and see if anything troubles us before we list the poll, though. That would allow us to determine any exceptions.  Hiding  talk 22:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like most of the proposal, I am not sure about how to work the suffrage.  As far as SR and valid objections, I would think a valid one would be most of what was discussed here, and not I want, listed above.  I wouldn't say it would require an admin to decide, as anyone who has spent a fair amount of time on any of the discussions would know a pointless objection over a valid one.  Plus every comment and/or objection would be seen by other users/admins in that discussion, so it could be "un-vetoed" if need be.  ∞Who?¿? 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed poll question? 

message: Having followed these discussions (and added the odd comment along the way) I am now totally lost as to who is saying what and why. I'm taking this page off my watch list.
If someone can come up with a summary of the discussion then please let me know.
--JimmyTheWig 08:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost 

message: In that mind, it occurs to me to propose that on the American issue we could propose to allow the term American to be used to represent the United States on the basis of first usage, similar to the British/American spelling.  If the category is named American, do not rename, and the same for United States.  US and U.S. should however, be renamed to United States, and we could also propose placing a notice on categories which use American to the effect that the term is used to convey the nationality of the United States rather than to denote continental nationality. This would prevent systematic bias which could be argued if either side were chosen, and represents the split that seemed apparant on the issue. Thoughts? Hiding  talk 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to presuppose the discardment of the perfectly good discussions and progress we are making chunk-by-chunk above. I don't see the reason for the sudden changing of heart. -Splash 20:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this. I suggest defering it. Maurreen (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair play.  The issue hadn't been raised for a while, I didn't really notice any discussion of it, to be honest, and this suggested itself as a nice compromise.  It would be nice to have thoughts on the compromise, but I shall kick it back into the long grass. Hiding  talk 20:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: American/United States