Category talk:en:United States county index
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Per User talk:Koavf#Category:en:United States county index. This was deleted without an RFD discussion, which initially concerned me, but apparently there was some discussion elsewhere for some similar category/categories, though this discussion wasn't even carried out in the Wiktionary namespace. So, from what I'm hearing, even in these other cases proper procedure was not carried out. Whenever a page is deleted, and I'm left wondering why, I'm always irritated to see that such a page's talk page doesn't exist. So here we go.
The category's purpose was to contain all United States county names, regardless of which state these counties are in. It could be seen as an interesting idea, but how necessary is it? Let's let proper consensus decide here.
(I'm not sure which similar other categories they were talking about, but I guess this discussion could apply to those too?) PseudoSkull (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- @PseudoSkull: I did open a BP discussion about this, which you may have missed. DonnanZ (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- For context: the deletion log:
- 2017-06-26T12:21:19 -sche (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Category:en:United States county index (this is an effort by one POV-pushing user at making an end-run around the clear consensus that entries should be categorized by state, not all lumped into one massive category)
- Discussion on my talk
- -sche's talk
- Donnanz's talk.
- Several admins told him not to categorize like this, he never had any consensus to do so, made the category anyway, it got deleted by an admin ("this is an effort by one POV-pushing user at making an end-run around the clear consensus that entries should be categorized by state, not all lumped into one massive category"), and then he just remade it again. Recreation of deleted material seems open-and-shut to me but if it's worthwhile to others to have a proper discussion in Wiktionary namespace that can be archived at the talk page, then I'm happy to give my perspective. If Donnanz has any place where he got consensus to recreate this deleted scheme, please provide it. Otherwise, it's just undoing an admin action without consensus (or even discussion?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have been trying to find the "several admins", I can only find ChuckEntz who said "I have to agree, though, that it's better not to categorize everything into the parent category- anything over 200 members in topical categories should be avoided if there's a logical way to do it." Even then he was forgetting about Category:English surnames which has no less than 26,894 entries at present, and loads of subcategories. No one else offered any criticism. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- The following was something I already posted on your talk in regards to this issue months ago:
- User:Chuck Entz, 2017-05-15T10:08:39: "I have to agree, though, that it's better not to categorize everything into the parent category- anything over 200 members in topical categories should be avoided if there's a logical way to do it.". User:Angr, 2017-05-19T13:03:54: "For the topical categories, you're probably right that we should avoid duplication and only put things in the most specific category available". User:DTLHS, 2017-05-19T14:50:08: "I believe categorizing only in the most specific category is reasonable." User:Erutuon on 2017-05-19T14:46:51 "I agree that entries should not be put in both the parent and child topic category. There are other ways to generate the list of US county names that you desire." and 2017-05-19T15:14:14: "add only the "county in a given state" category." Shall I go on? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are simply obsessed. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:Chuck Entz, 2017-05-15T10:08:39: "I have to agree, though, that it's better not to categorize everything into the parent category- anything over 200 members in topical categories should be avoided if there's a logical way to do it.". User:Angr, 2017-05-19T13:03:54: "For the topical categories, you're probably right that we should avoid duplication and only put things in the most specific category available". User:DTLHS, 2017-05-19T14:50:08: "I believe categorizing only in the most specific category is reasonable." User:Erutuon on 2017-05-19T14:46:51 "I agree that entries should not be put in both the parent and child topic category. There are other ways to generate the list of US county names that you desire." and 2017-05-19T15:14:14: "add only the "county in a given state" category." Shall I go on? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Now please address the request below: where did you find any consensus for your scheme? Why did you undo an admin action in deleting the category? The burden is on you to explain how your actions reflect consensus after an admin deleted this category and you remade it. If you cannot provide any consensus, you must not have any. Me deleting material that was already deleted is not "vandalism". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- The following was something I already posted on your talk in regards to this issue months ago:
- I have been trying to find the "several admins", I can only find ChuckEntz who said "I have to agree, though, that it's better not to categorize everything into the parent category- anything over 200 members in topical categories should be avoided if there's a logical way to do it." Even then he was forgetting about Category:English surnames which has no less than 26,894 entries at present, and loads of subcategories. No one else offered any criticism. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Donnanz Please explain why you recreated the deleted category and show where you got consensus to do so. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- It was my decision, and at the time no action was taken. In fact a blind eye was turned, which appears to be consensus by default. Anyway, I'm not going to carry on arguing about that, all I am seeking is speedy reinstatement and I don't need to be cross-examined about it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
If the category is not reinstated, I will seriously consider requesting deletion of every US county entry I have created, well over 1000 of them. At the moment Koavf is getting away with it simply because he now has admin rights that I don't have or want, but he is forgetting that I have very strong feelings too. DonnanZ (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- And you call me obsessed. Everything here exists due to consensus: if you don't have consensus for this to exist, then it won't. You are, of course, free to not add any free labor here in the future and it would be unfortunate if you chose that. Consensus doesn't work as a product of threats to not do something on a volunteer basis. If you propose for deletion valid entries, they will not be deleted: why would it matter who created them in the first place? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I am not obsessed, I am simply fed up with continual interference from yourself. So, depending on the outcome, I would be quite happy to undo all the work I have done, even though it was nearing completion, and wash my hands completely of the matter as you have succeeded, due to your obsession, in taking any pleasure out of the task. Sad but true. I do have other interests on Wiktionary which you don't get involved in fortunately, so I will still be here. I don't need to go off in a huff and close my account. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I have set up an interim county index on my user page. It doesn't work as well as the original of course, needing manual editing, has no index and no automatic tally of entries. There are very few entries at the moment, but I will build it up. It can be scrapped if the original is reinstated. DonnanZ (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. DTLHS (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Remains deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)