Category:1918 in Moldova – No consensus to overturn the deletion; a majority of contributors endorses it. Sandstein 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:1918 in Moldova (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Existing practice is to have years for modern countries in Europe, even at a time they were not independent countries, see e.g. Category:Years_of_the_20th_century_in_Poland, Category:18th_century_in_Romania, Category:18th_century_in_Italy, etc. Review is requested for all pages in the original CfD. I consider the nominator failed to inform interested users, as no user was personally notified: search results. There's no explicit notificaton of Wikiproject Moldova either: talk page. Thus, this goes against due process. Anonimu (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to raise matters that could have been raised during the deletion discussion or re-raise matters already raised there. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- Consensus at the CfD was pretty clear to delete them. And AFAICT current practice is moving away from these overspecific and underpopulated categories. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse because that was the CFD consensus. What to do? Well, I can't think of any very good way of categorising areas under times of tumult, but that doesn't inhibit the categorisers (nor maybe should it). Why not do rather like like Renata3 and seek advice from those interested in Moldova leading here? The issue you raise here is a somewhat different one from that, I think. If there is consensus the matter could be re-raised at CfD (which is Categories for discussion, not just deletion) or simply implemented. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist CfDs are easy to miss. The Wikiproject in question wasn't notified. They also weren't notified of the June 15th CfD. It may well be this is the right outcome, but doing so without making those who care the most (and likely know the most) aware of the discussion seems problematic. I'd rather be right than rushed here. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hobit, Which wikiproject? Are you talking WikiProject Years or WikiProject Russia? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm sceptical of making WikiProject notifications mandatory. It seems to suggest that the community needs a project's permission to do anything, and these notifications often amount to canvassing for keep votes given the fanboyish nature of many wikiprojects. The latter concern might be less of an issue for categories than it would be for articles, but still. Reyk _YO! 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's not so much a matter that the wikiproject wasn't notified, it's that nobody was, unless they happen to watchlist CFD or those particular categories - they don't have remotely the same visibility that an AFD tag on an article does. Previous practice at DRV (recentish examples: 1 (the file), 2, 3 (the template)) has been to relist in such cases so long as the person who missed the discussion has a rational argument that could have affected it. I haven't ever participated in category maintenance of any sort outside the occasional C1 speedy deletion, so I can't make an informed assessment of how likely Anonimu's participation would have been to change the CFD outcome (gut feeling: not very). But I know it's not reasonable to reflexively forbid further discussion because three users already quietly decided it amongst themselves in an obscure backwater of Wikipedia, complete with "Beware of the Leopard" sign. —Cryptic 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] A dozen years on, CfD is still broken.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] I was referring to Wikiproject Moldova, but yeah, any of them. In general, with CfD, I'd prefer we by default relist low attendance ones where deletion sorting isn't used and there is a rational cases to be made that the wrong thing was done. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] They were notified of the June 15th discussion, which is great and maybe enough. Not sure. I'm not pushing for these to be mandatory by the way, but I do think the lack of notifications can be a good reason to believe a better discussion can be had. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Where exactly is the notification?Anonimu (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] As for notification: Some of these categories were originally listed on 15 June, and a larger set was re-nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_9#Early_C20_in_Moldova. A good number of the nominated pages were tagged with WP Moldova, so the nominations were successfully reported on that project's Alerts page, see [1] and [2]. Automated alerts have been the main method of seeking participation from WikiProjects for several years now. IMHO, five weeks on the Alerts page is more than enough time for project members to notice the discussion. As for retaining the anachronistic categories for previous periods: decisions at CFD about this practice have been mixed. I did at least suggest at the 15 June discussion that the Moldova hierarchy should be kept, but no other editors supported it there, so I did not repeat that aspect in the re-nomination in July. Please note my comments in that CFD that all the former member pages of the deleted categories are still within the Moldova hierarchy as Moldovan political parties etc. One option for Anonimu/ WikiProject Moldova to consider would be to expand Category:History of Chișinău with at least a C20 category, and perhaps some decade categories if there would be enough content for them. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Doesn’t seem right for “cleanup” to start with small countries with a naturally smaller editor base (one editor above seems to think Moldova is just a region of Russia). I only became aware of this discussion as categories began to dissappear in articles, some time after the discussion was closed. While I don’t consider myself a WP expert, I have been here for 15 years, making more than 10,000 edits. If this was able to pass under my radar, it certainly didn’t reach the less experienced editors among an objectively smaller selection of editors actually contributing with content related to Moldova. Anonimu (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Relist. DRV is for cases where the page was deleted and someone with a novel argument disagrees with the result. If someone disagreed with a keep result, they could simply renominate it for deletion. But what to do if a page is deleted? If they tried to recreate the category, it would just get WP:G4'd. They can't create a draft and submit it for review because there is no AfC process for categories, and it wouldn't make sense to have one anyways. If we disallow DRV, then there are literally no avenues of appeal left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. This has been discussed in 2 CfD discussions (1, 2) and I see nothing wrong in either discussion (of which I was a participant). Granted, CFDs (or any discussion) are easy to miss, but this discussion happened, was open for longer than most discussions usually are and was the subject of debate, even if larger notification of the discussion could have happened (as for any discussion). I missed it is probably not a sufficient motivation to overturn the decision, especially as the stakes are quite low herefor a few scarcely populated chronology categories about interwar Moldova/Bessarabia that create more problems than they solve and do not form any coherent structure. Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] There were only 3 participants in the discussion, including the nominator. A sloppy search in their edit history shows none of them ever edited on an article related to Moldova. Since I doubt CfD is watched by many content editors, refusing review means a small group can wreak havoc without any possibility of appeal.Anonimu (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The discussion wasn't great, but per the above discussion and the fact notification requirements are not strict there's no "due process violation" here, and the result, I think, is correct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:1918 in Moldova – No consensus to overturn the deletion; a majority of contributors endorses it. Sandstein 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Existing practice is to have years for modern countries in Europe, even at a time they were not independent countries, see e.g. Category:Years_of_the_20th_century_in_Poland, Category:18th_century_in_Romania, Category:18th_century_in_Italy, etc. Review is requested for all pages in the original CfD. I consider the nominator failed to inform interested users, as no user was personally notified: search results. There's no explicit notificaton of Wikiproject Moldova either: talk page. Thus, this goes against due process. Anonimu (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to raise failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to raise matters that could have been raised during the deletion discussion or re-raise matters already raised there. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Consensus at the CfD was pretty clear to delete them. And AFAICT current practice is moving away from these overspecific and underpopulated categories. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because that was the CFD consensus. What to do? Well, I can't think of any very good way of categorising areas under times of tumult, but that doesn't inhibit the categorisers (nor maybe should it). Why not do rather like like Renata3 and seek advice from those interested in Moldova leading here? The issue you raise here is a somewhat different one from that, I think. If there is consensus the matter could be re-raised at CfD (which is Categories for discussion, not just deletion) or simply implemented. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist CfDs are easy to miss. The Wikiproject in question wasn't notified. They also weren't notified of the June 15th CfD. It may well be this is the right outcome, but doing so without making those who care the most (and likely know the most) aware of the discussion seems problematic. I'd rather be right than rushed here. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, Which wikiproject? Are you talking WikiProject Years or WikiProject Russia? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sceptical of making WikiProject notifications mandatory. It seems to suggest that the community needs a project's permission to do anything, and these notifications often amount to canvassing for keep votes given the fanboyish nature of many wikiprojects. The latter concern might be less of an issue for categories than it would be for articles, but still. Reyk _YO! 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a matter that the wikiproject wasn't notified, it's that nobody was, unless they happen to watchlist CFD or those particular categories - they don't have remotely the same visibility that an AFD tag on an article does. Previous practice at DRV (recentish examples: 1 (the file), 2, 3 (the template)) has been to relist in such cases so long as the person who missed the discussion has a rational argument that could have affected it. I haven't ever participated in category maintenance of any sort outside the occasional C1 speedy deletion, so I can't make an informed assessment of how likely Anonimu's participation would have been to change the CFD outcome (gut feeling: not very). But I know it's not reasonable to reflexively forbid further discussion because three users already quietly decided it amongst themselves in an obscure backwater of Wikipedia, complete with "Beware of the Leopard" sign. —Cryptic 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A dozen years on, CfD is still broken.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikiproject Moldova, but yeah, any of them. In general, with CfD, I'd prefer we by default relist low attendance ones where deletion sorting isn't used and there is a rational cases to be made that the wrong thing was done. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were notified of the June 15th discussion, which is great and maybe enough. Not sure. I'm not pushing for these to be mandatory by the way, but I do think the lack of notifications can be a good reason to believe a better discussion can be had. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is the notification?Anonimu (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for notification: Some of these categories were originally listed on 15 June, and a larger set was re-nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_9#Early_C20_in_Moldova. A good number of the nominated pages were tagged with WP Moldova, so the nominations were successfully reported on that project's Alerts page, see [1] and [2]. Automated alerts have been the main method of seeking participation from WikiProjects for several years now. IMHO, five weeks on the Alerts page is more than enough time for project members to notice the discussion.
As for retaining the anachronistic categories for previous periods: decisions at CFD about this practice have been mixed. I did at least suggest at the 15 June discussion that the Moldova hierarchy should be kept, but no other editors supported it there, so I did not repeat that aspect in the re-nomination in July. Please note my comments in that CFD that all the former member pages of the deleted categories are still within the Moldova hierarchy as Moldovan political parties etc.
One option for Anonimu/ WikiProject Moldova to consider would be to expand Category:History of Chișinău with at least a C20 category, and perhaps some decade categories if there would be enough content for them. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn’t seem right for “cleanup” to start with small countries with a naturally smaller editor base (one editor above seems to think Moldova is just a region of Russia). I only became aware of this discussion as categories began to dissappear in articles, some time after the discussion was closed. While I don’t consider myself a WP expert, I have been here for 15 years, making more than 10,000 edits. If this was able to pass under my radar, it certainly didn’t reach the less experienced editors among an objectively smaller selection of editors actually contributing with content related to Moldova. Anonimu (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. DRV is for cases where the page was deleted and someone with a novel argument disagrees with the result. If someone disagreed with a keep result, they could simply renominate it for deletion. But what to do if a page is deleted? If they tried to recreate the category, it would just get WP:G4'd. They can't create a draft and submit it for review because there is no AfC process for categories, and it wouldn't make sense to have one anyways. If we disallow DRV, then there are literally no avenues of appeal left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This has been discussed in 2 CfD discussions (1, 2) and I see nothing wrong in either discussion (of which I was a participant). Granted, CFDs (or any discussion) are easy to miss, but this discussion happened, was open for longer than most discussions usually are and was the subject of debate, even if larger notification of the discussion could have happened (as for any discussion). I missed it is probably not a sufficient motivation to overturn the decision, especially as the stakes are quite low herefor a few scarcely populated chronology categories about interwar Moldova/Bessarabia that create more problems than they solve and do not form any coherent structure. Place Clichy (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were only 3 participants in the discussion, including the nominator. A sloppy search in their edit history shows none of them ever edited on an article related to Moldova. Since I doubt CfD is watched by many content editors, refusing review means a small group can wreak havoc without any possibility of appeal.Anonimu (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion wasn't great, but per the above discussion and the fact notification requirements are not strict there's no "due process violation" here, and the result, I think, is correct. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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