- Category:People born on February 29 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closure of this page was not the result of a discussion but that of a poll as the closing admin based the closure on the numbers and not the weight of arguements presented. After requesting a review based on the arguements the admin responded that the consensus was to delete. Firstly the category meest the requirements of WP:CATEGORY and does not meet the requirement of WP:OC#Trivia but is actually reafirmed as an appropriate category by that guideline as its defines overcategorization as something can easily be left out of a biography, which it isnt. WP:CATEGORY requiures that categories be what readers would most likely use to look for articles, this category had 400~600 hits per month Jan 10(691),Dec 09(446),Nov 09(537)(Feb 10 had 697 but that would have been partially inflated by the CfD[1] and partially deflated as it only 3/4 of the month). According to all the arguements raised this category meets all of WP guidelines in deciding the suitability of the category. The only argument for deletion was that its not a defining trate but triva as prescribe by WP:OC#Trivia, none of the proponents supported this positions with any facts or sources as such its these arguements should have ignored as WP:OR. Gnangarra 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I'm not sure how User:Gnangarra has come to the conclusion that the closure was based on vote counting as opposed the contents of the discussion. I think the closure is reasonably reflective of the discussion that took place. Gnangarra was opposed to deletion in the discussion, but that doesn't mean that the closer's interpretation of the overall discussion was flawed. (Note: I participated in the discussion and was in favour of deletion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its simple the contents of the discussion were ignored, the category meets all community requirements. The closing admin has not explain what policy/guideline is the basis for deletion, even after a request therefore the only conclusion is the number of votes. Gnangarra 03:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, even if true that doesn't amount to the close being a pure vote count, which is what is sounds like to me you're suggesting. If you re-read the discussion, I think you'll find that there was discussion of applicable policies that would justify deletion. You can criticise other participants in the discussion for not focusing on the issues you thought were most relevant, but I don't think you can say that the closer did a vote count and ignored the contents of the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Clearly the discussion and comments make it clear that this was the proper action in this case. Now if we were into vote counting then maybe there would be a reason to review the decision. I don't see where the contents of the discussion were ignored. Rather the soundness of the arguments were evaluated and a decision was made based on that. Remember that the precedent is to not classify user articles by birth day. In many person articles there are simply too many categories so you need to make a strong case as to why an exception should have been granted in this case. That case was not made. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What precendent surely you dont mean the decision that was made not to link birth dates in articles. As 400-600(700) readers accessing the category each month is not enough for a category that is compliant with WP:CATEGORY, what then is the number that must be obtained? Gnangarra 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The precedent is all of the other birth date categories that do not exist. This has nothing to do with the article date linking issue. I don't even understand how that got dragged into this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, reasonable close. I can't find clear error. Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, the closure was a good reflection of the balance of the arguments presented by participants in the debate. BencherliteTalk 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The best way of proceeding from here would be to have a general discussion on making 366 categories, automatically populated from the persondata. Plus 12 for the months. These no longer take maintaining. It's time we started taking advantage of what semantic features we do have. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that would not work, for two reasons. First, as of July 2009, only slightly more than 8% of biographies contained {{persondata}} (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata#Goals). Second, consensus seems to be against categorizing individuals by date of birth or month of birth; the only reason that there was any real disagreement regarding the February 29 category is due to the fact that the date February 29 only comes around once every four years. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- there's no novality factor in wanting the category ,what I see is 1) its being used regularly 2)birth day is defining in many societies particularly to those who are interested in Astrology, 3) significantly the most valuable piece of real estate on the internet devotes a section to events on a day including births categories are the best way collate the articles(including new articles) rather than incomplete lists especially now we no longer link to date pages from articles where such lists are found. Gnangarra 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Date of birth categories are not "used regularly"; to my knowledge, the Feb. 29 category was the only one that still existed. (2) Your argument seems to make no distinction between the concepts of "defining" and "interesting", yet "interesting" does not necessarily equate with defining. Date of birth is interesting for those who are interested in astrology, but that fact alone does not make it defining for the actual subjects of articles. (3) The purpose of the Main Page is to serve as a gateway to Wikipedia, and to highlight quality, new, or interesting content. The purpose of categories is to group related articles for the purposes of navigation. Given these vastly different functions, it is to be expected that all of the same principles do not apply to both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I could find no indication, either in the closing statement or in the thread on the closer's page, to suggest that the closer merely counted !votes and ignored arguments. The "400-600 views per month" argument is not convincing as a "big number" has nothing to do with the suitability of a category to convey this type of information (e.g., Category:Russia (~550–850 hits) is not somehow more valid because it receives more pageviews than Category:Brunei (~250–300)). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The category of 200+ is now a list of about 80, I'm convinced now that a category isnt a good way to convey this information. The 400~600 people using the category will just have to go elsewhere for the information. Well done folks, you can close this DRV anytime you want and can the last person to leave please turn off the lights... Gnangarra 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose Gnangarra's request to close the DRV. It appears to be based on "the numbers and not the weight of arguments presented", because it offers no explanation of how Gnangarra has been persuaded, or of which arguments were persuasive. Furthermore, I oppose turning off the lights, because it's really hard to edit in the dark. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion While I voted Keep, consensus here from the usual suspects was for deletion. I support DGG's suggestion that we take advantage of persondata to categorize on a broader basis as a goal for categorization. Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, closed accurately and in accordance with consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion – per Alansohn, all of whose remarks above are sagacious. Occuli (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
