Old proposal

Archives

Archive 1 –

The code permits multiple sorting templates by duplicating the REMOVE WHEN CLOSING template. Is there a circumstance that this is good for? Or is it simply a side-effect of the way we use templates? The only thing I could think of would be an article like "Coverage of the 2008 Election", which (ignoring the fact that it would likely not be up for deletion) would fit M - Media and S - Society. I don't know if multiple catagories would matter elsewhere, but maybe I'm missing something? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a deliberate decision to allow this when I drafted the coding behind the current system, it just happened that way. Some users seem to find this ability useful, although the coding of {{afd2}} doesn't provide an obvious means to do that and the second cat has to be added later. --ais523 09:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've been working on clearing the backlog at Not Yet Sorted and Nom Unsure of Catagory, and I hate putting something under unclassifiable simply because I can't pick between two equally plausible catagories. This will help, though I doubt I'll use it more than once in a while. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I found a use for multiple catagories - AfD's with multiple nominated articles. This one in particular included a theory, a phsycial feature of the planet, and an individual who advanced the theory. So, I ended up sorting as Science, Place, and Bio to cover each of the three catagories. Three cats makes it a little cumbersome, but I'm not sure how else I would have been able to proceed. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Afd'd Currency correlation and decided that as mathematics isn't science, I'd class it unknown. If it is a science then some clarification would be good. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through the sorted deletion debates, I frequently find the same type of article being sorted multiple different ways. For instance, I find a lot of schools in both Places and Groups, Bands in both Music and Groups, sports teams in both groups and sports, and so on. Since the whole point of these categories was, I thought, to group similar debates for ease of navigation, it would make sense to have some sort of notion as to what debates fit which categories. I've tried to set down my thoughts on what goes where, and would invite input from anyone who happens to have this page on their watchlist. I'm not proposing a policy, or even a guideline - just an essay that, I think, may help clarify some of the more foggy cases. I've written a draft of the essay here. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I suggest that whatever goes on Category:AfD debates be a very short list of common items beside each subcat, like the table you have at the top, with a link to the longer essay for those interested. –Pomte 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any meaningful difference between these classifications? It seems to me that, for the purpose of categorizing AfD debates, "not yet sorted" effectively covers any circumstance where a debate is not sorted into one of the topic-specific categories. After all, how important is it to know that the nominator is "unsure" versus just knowing that the debate is unsorted? I propose merging the "I", "?" and "U" codes and using them to populate one category: Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- good idea. Reyk _YO! 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've always found this annoying, especially as I nominate a lot of history and archaeology topics and I'd prefer to leave them to get sorted rather than put them somewhere that I don't think they belong (although maybe someone can convince me there is an appropriate place). Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I haze zero problems with eliminating "nominator unsure." Some editors may prefer to have "I" just for those very unusual cases, but I don't. I'll concede I don't sort deletion discussions as often as might, but I see no reason to have three separate classifiers when one would do. BusterD (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This has always made me scratch my head in puzzlement... — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial Support. Functionally, there's really no difference between "Not Yet Sorted" and "Nominator Unsure", so merging them doesn't change anything - and I'd Support that. On the other hand, though, "Indiscernable or Unclassifiable" is a useful category where we put all of the "What the hell is this article about anyway?" debates. Disambiguation pages and some lists frequently end up here, if the articles cover a broad range of topics; better to put it here than to add all of the other categories. Sometimes we see articles with a foreign-language component, or articles by non-native speakers where the syntax (or lack thereof) makes nailing down the topic difficult. Put it this way - it's trivial to look at an unsorted debate and sort it properly - and, indeed, that's what we have the category for in the first place. But the indiscernables usually demand additional attention. It's a useful dichotomy. On that basis, I'd Oppose the merge of the Indiscernable category.UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might also look at the articles there at the moment. We have one unclassifiable debates, at present - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huai'an Pingqiao tofu appears to deal with an article about a tofu recipe. Maybe it could be a product, which would go with Corporations and Organizations under "O", but that makes little sense. In this case, it fits well under the unclassifiable category. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "society topics" category probably covers the tofu deletion debate, since food is an aspect of society and culture. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead boldly and requested that "Nominator unsure" be merged into "Not yet sorted". I will nominate the "Nominator unsure" category for deletion when it is empty.

After reading the statement, I find myself in agreement with UltraExactZZ's view (that "indiscernable" should be kept). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been updated, as has the main page at CAT:AFD. Since Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category) is empty already, should we go ahead and send it to CFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD C1 will do the job. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is something of a low-traffic talk page, but would anyone care if I archived the 2006 discussions above? We need to keep them, if only to show how we got where we got, but there's no real need to keep them here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived everything on this page older than May 2007. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments please, on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 26#Semi-automate DELSORT based on Project tags. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]