- Request from closer. No objection to the nomination, but please explain how this isn't emptying a set of categories out of process.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving articles to a more specific sub-category has never been regarded as emptying-out-of-process. When I began the recategorisation, I assumed that some pages would not belong in the sub-categories, per the fears expressed at the previous CfD. However, that turned out to be mistaken.
- Whether those sub-categories are a good idea can often be grounds for a discussion afterwards, but that applies to any new category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Note the discussion at CfD 2011 June 16. Some editors objected to possible inaccuracies if the categories were renamed to something of a narrower scope, but those who objected also gave explicit approval to the creation of the sub-categories, as I have done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I think the presumption has to be on the previous state of the categories. That is, another no-consensus result would result in the categories being emptied back into their previous states. But I don't want to prejudge it. Let's see where this ends up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, see my comment below about the convention of these categories. A renaming from "Dukedoms of Foo" could have been done as a a C2C speedy. Please also note your own closing comments at the previous CfD: "As far as I can tell, there's no merit to the claim that the Peerage categories were emptied out of process; rather, it appears that those categories were created unilaterally".
- If editors want to rename or merge the categories which fit the current convention, they should seek a consensus to do so. We have already had one episode of the convention-fitting categories being depopulated on invalid procedural grounds. If there are to be any further changes, let's decide this by a consensus to change the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, please understand that I have no opinion on one set of names or another. I'd like to see where this goes. But I should be clear about what my comment in the close meant. As far as I can tell, this sequence occurred: The "Dukedoms of" categories were created in 2011. Those categories were emptied in recent weeks and replaced unilaterally by Tryde with "Dukedoms in the Peerage of" categories. Timrollpickering put that all back because he believed it was done out of process. The original categories were put up for discussion, and no consensus occurred, so I closed it as no consensus. So the first emptying was done out of process (they should be been done by a "rename" nomination), and the second was done as an attempt to fix the first one. Unless I have that wrong, the original categories have primacy. If you can convince people that the Peerages categories should be retained, then that's great. If not, I think it all has to go back to the original state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, I hope that I have not appeared to be questioning your neutrality. I accept that your concerns are procedural. However, this is turning into an increasingly frustrating catch-22.
- The first emptying was done by Tryde checking the articles and moving them to a more precisely-named category with a narrower scope, which should have been a subcat of the original (tho it appears not to have been).
- Those moves were reverted as out-of-process, but when the rename discussion came up, some of the editors who opposed a rename did so on the basis that a straightforward rename would lead to miscategorisation some articles. So the only way to do this was a selective recategorisation, as I did.
- But now, I'm being told that the selective renaming is not acceptable either. So it seems that we are caught in some sort of procedural knot, where there is no way to ensure that categories in this area are named consistently. Have you looked at the other similar categories? There are dozens of them, all using "Peerage of the Foo" (see collapsed list below). That's the clear convention for peerage cats in Britain and Ireland, and in other areas you argue strongly for upholding naming conventions unless there is a consensus to change the convention. Yet in this case, you seem to be unintentionally erecting a procedural lock against adopting that convention, when nobody has sought to change the rest of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
|
|
|