Wikipedia talk:Category deletion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Background

The speedy renaming procedure was adopted after consensual discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring.

Suggested new criteria

Singular to plural

Conversions from singular to plural (or back) were the third criterion originally suggested on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Restructuring. Since there was some controversy on its suitability, it should be discussed here before making it an 'official' criterion.

• This was listed on CFD/talk for a week and since it was supported and nobody objected, I've added it to the criteria. Radiant_* 09:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template

I've made a possible template for use on speedy-renaming candidates at template:Cfr-speedy. Its based on the cfr tamplate, but I've modified it slightly. Comments are more than welcome at its talk page. Thryduulf 11:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine tuning proposal

Now that the speedy renaming process has been running for a bit, I'd like to propose some fine tuning.

1. The as yet unresolved issue of pluralization. I think we should add pluralization to the official list of criteria. I don't think many people consider these sorts of moves to be controvercial at all. There are always exceptions where some discussion should take place, but this is true of any of our criteria - there could be a dispute over the proper spelling of something, whether part of the title is a proper noun or not, whether an entirely different title is more appropriate.
2. Personally, I'd like to see a wait time of 24 hours after tagging and listing before a category is cleared out and deleted. This gives interested parties a chance to object if there's something that needs to be addressed. I don't think people are going around emptying categories willy-nilly, right now. It seems things stay listed for a few days before someone gets around to cleaning them out, so this shouldn't really make a material change to how things are proceeding.
3. If someone does raise a concern or objection, I think we should be immediately removing the category from the speedy rename section, and move it to the main CfD page where it can receive a full hearing. I think we should discourage discussion within the speedy rename section, as it invalidates the purpose of setting up that section in the first place, and creates confussion about whether it is OK to proceed with the move or not.

Just a few humble suggestions. --Azkar 14:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Agreed. See talk page of WP:CFD.
2. This was discussed in the original Speedy Renaming proposal but didn't get any real consensus. In practice, there will always be some delay, and renaming can be undone as easily as it was done in the first place. The Speedy criteria are strictly limited for good reason.
3. Agreed.

Radiant_* 08:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template/cat overlap

See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Speedy category deletion. It was discussed there (with a link from WP:TFD/talk) and deemed common sense. Avoid duplicate discussions. Radiant_* 12:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

This point wasn't obvious, therefore I managed to get a category deleted but the template survived. I've now proposed a new Template:Catfd(edit talk links history) to simplify this prcodecure, and {{catfd2}} has a pointer to this section of the new WP:CDP shortcut. Omniplex  05:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A vote on a category is a vote on subcategories

Recently, there was a long, drawn-out discussion and vote to delete Category:Terrorist organizations, a decision I agree with. However, it now appears that the following categories still exist: Category:Zionist terrorist organizations, Category:Islamic terrorist organizations, Category:Leftist terrorist organizations, Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations, Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States, Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland, Category:Northern Ireland terrorists, Category:Terrorists by region and Category:Palestinian terrorists. These are now listed Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 20.

I propose that Categories for deletion policy be amended to make explicit that a vote for deletion is a vote to delete all of a category's subcategories. How can the inclusion/exclusion criteria be any different for a subcategory than for its parent? This would of course imply adding a {cfd} template message to every subcategory when the parent is listed for deletion. -- Viajero | Talk 16:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these sub-cats should have been included in the original discussion, but I'm a little wary of saying that the entire structure should be always be put up for deletion when a super-cat is. Our categories aren't a straight heirarchy - they weive in many different ways, and are part of other structures.

Also, this was ultimately a rename vote. We rename categories all the time, without needing to rename sub-categories.

I think it's fine to have discussions on deleting / renaming a whole structure, but every category that's being discussed should be brought up in the proposal. It makes it clear what we're talking about doing. --Azkar 18:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Viajero was totally right about this particular case, but the principle doesn't generalize. There can be perfectly valid subcategories under an invalid category. For example, imagine if someone created a category of present-day countries whose territory intersects the onetime Western Roman Empire, and we decided to delete that. Surely we wouldn't wish, for example, then to delete Category:France. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. As Radiant pointed out, probably the only solution is to list them all at once, as he did with the terrorist subcats. -- Viajero | Talk 11:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

So far this policy did use this word, but did not define it, relying on the common sense and practices at other deletion pages. the problem is that consensus cannot work well here, since this page is not visited sufficiently frequently to deliver opinions of editors whose work is influenced by the decision. A part of the reason is that categories are on the watch lists of too few people, sinve they are not edited frequently.

I am not good at writing policies. However I feel that for this case the notion of consensus must be much stricter and must include at least the following rule:

• There is no consensus, if reasonable objections have not been resolved.

Or whatever better wording. I understand that this is still a vague phrasing. But the sole goal of it is to request a more considerate decision making by the person who decides the fate of a category when facing only a handful of opinions. Deciding fates of dozens of articles by voices of 3-4 persons is soooo far from democracy and consensus, so I suggest to forget these words in this context at all. Mikkalai 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• I believe a better solution would be to draw more people into the debate - which is what the CFD notice is for. Although that doesn't always work. The problem with your wording is that it's hard to tell which objections are to be considered reasonable. Radiant_* 21:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Category renaming by moving?

I'm a little confused regarding the actual procedure to use for renaming categories. Since redirection of categories isn't as yet possible, wouldn't a plain move to a new category page with the desired name f*ck things up? If I have overlooked some specific information on this issue, please point me in that direction or otherwise enlighten me. --Wernher 4 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

Yes. That is why you should list a category for renaming on WP:CFD instead (in the 'speedy renaming' section, if appropriate). A bot will be employed to recategorize all relevant articles. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 21:16 (UTC)

OK, I now have a 'hands-on example' for renaming: we seem to have reached a concensus for Category:Individual computers to be renamed to Category:One-of-a-kind computers. However, on this talk page's 'mother page', there's no closure instructions for the renaming of categories---only for deleting or keeping. We should do something about this; I, for one, was left with no clear comprehension as to what to do in this situation. The information needed is: where should resolved renaming issues be listed (how about a separate section?), so that the bot you mentioned may be put to the task of doing the actual recategorization? --Wernher 23:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding criteria - best place for discussion

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. I noted it had been amended to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and couoldn't find any discussion on this page as to why that change had been made. I'd argue that the traffic on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions is higher than at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and that people are going to be expecting to discuss such issues at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and therefore watching it there. However I could be wrong, I just think that changing the page where the discussion should be had needs to be discussed. Hiding talk 15:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please check {{cent}}. It's transcluded from a number of high-visibility pages. Also, the entire point of WP:CENT for the past four months or so has been to provide a centralized forum for otherwise repetitive deletion discussions. Radiant_>|< 15:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I have no problem with changing it, I just feel it should be discussed on the talk page first as per the policy template. I may just be being a fussbucket, but I am worried that recent proposals for adding criteria haven't had any discussion. However, if this discussion between you and me attracts as little outside interest, I am happy to bow to any change. Hiding talk 15:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding.

Further, this diff shows that Radiant created Wikipedia:Centralized discussion on 17 August. It hasn't existed for 10 days, let alone "the entire point of WP:CENT for the past four months or so has been to provide a centralized forum." Maurreen (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• You are wrong. WP:CENT was created March 8th. It used to be called "policy consensus", but was renamed to "centralized discussion" because that name reflects its function better. It has been working well during that time, and created a number of guidelines. Radiant_>|< 07:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for new criteria should be proposed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. If a strong consensus is reached on a naming convention, it should be added to the speedy renaming criteria below.

If you feel that established and consensual naming convention would be appropriate here, please list it on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. If there are no objections after a week, it can be added to the list of criteria here. If there are objections, a consensus should be formed.

Now I look at it again, do these two seem to contradict each other? As to where the discussion should be held for new criteria to be discussed, I am coming to the mind that it doesn't matter so much as long as the discussion is advertised on the pump. Personally, I think Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion might be the better place. Hiding talk 20:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that the subject under discussion is "Categories for deletion", it makes the most sense to me to discuss criteria at either Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion policies.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions would be my next choice. Maurreen (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Of course it doesn't matter where the debate is as long as it's advertised. The point is that {{Cent}} is one of the more suitable places to advertise it. That doesn't mean it couldn't also be advertised some place else... CS comes to mind. Note that 1) if the discussion is lengthy, it should be on its own page, and 2) the various talk pages Maurreen mentiones are all rather low-profile. Radiant_>|< 08:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if it's advertised at the pump and on CENT, then it shouldn't matter being on a low profile page. We could also make a proviso that it is advertised on relevant category talk pages. The fact that it gets split off onto a subpage isn't too relevant, as that sub-page could be a sub-page of anything. I think Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion is probably the best watched page of those discussed in terms of people who care about category deletion, no? Doesn't that make it the best place to hold the discussion? Hiding talk 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Probably. Unless the discussion is long, in which case fork out. Bottom line - it doesn't matter where the discussion is held unless it's advertised. I think we're both agreed to that. Feel free to reword my recent rewording to anything along those lines. Radiant_>|< 10:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I added a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), I think that's a high profile page. Other than that, cool beans. Hiding talk 18:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Cool beans? Er, huh? (oh and yes, VP is about as high-profile as we get) Radiant_>|< 09:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Controversial decisions

It has been pointed out to me that the section about handling "controversial decisions" is not currently followed. Reading the section, I agree. As the system currently functions, this section is generally not used. But it is technically a part of the policy. But policy can be changed, and that is my purpose here. To try to get the section rewritten to better reflect the current realities of how CFD functions.

First off, the section is definitely out of date. It mentions VFD, which has not existed for quite some time.

Second, it basically says that all No Consensous (NC) debates should be put on unresolved for an extra seven days, with a posting made to try to bring in some more more debate. This is not how the page has operated in as long as I can remember. In general, NC descisions are closed and done. The Unresolved section is used sometimes at the discression of the closer if they feel that more time can make a difference. But having to do this for every no consensous would be a major increase in the workload on a page that already tends to fall behind. (And I'm talking about falling behind on the closings, not the execution of renames, which is a whole nother backlog situation)

And, there's the issue of how to get more comments on held-over debates. The section says VFD, which no longer exists. It was replaced with AFD, which is primarily focused on articles. So AFD would not really be an appropriate place IMHO to go posting for input on CFD votes. I guess MFD would be a possibility, but I suspect that's even lower traffic than CFD, so I'm skeptical it wold bring much extra traffic. Plus I wonder if such notices would be appreciated on MFD, or whether MFD would consider them to be off topic to that place.

Given all the problems, I don't see a good way to recover this section as policy that coverts the current CFD realities. So my inclination would simply be to remove it, and write a segment to the previous section reflecting how NC are handled. If there is no discussion here to that effect within a week or so, I'll be bold and make that edit. but I'll give it a week for discussion to start up. There's no hurry, the section has been as it is for quite a while. - TexasAndroid 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If a debate is no consensus because there aren't enough votes on it then it should be relisted for another 7 days (or however long the backlog actually makes it) as is done on AFD. Otherwise it ought to be closed. Of course closing the CFD doesn't mean the end of discussion, this should still be encouraged on talk pages and WP:CENT if appropriate. the wub "?!" 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

We should also delete Wikipedia:Unresolved after seven days, and the references to it on the CFD page. the wub "?!" 08:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should be relisted. This should be done simply by moving them to the top of the page under the new date. That is the only method which is actually likely to generate more votes. I probably vote on more of these anyone else, but I don't think even I will bother to review a separate section. They follow up period has to be in the main section, giving equal prominence with fresh nominations, or it is not worth bothering with. Bhoeble 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. So if a nomination needs more time, close it and copy the debate to the current day's section to give it a fresh 7 days.

Now we need criteria for when to do this. - TexasAndroid 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes there really is no consensus, in which case the best thing to do is probably close the CfD/R/M and have the discussion elsewhere. I think that things should only be relisted if either a) a new proposal has been made, and we need to give people more time to consider it; or b) there is little traffic and no consensus. Even then, things should only be relisted once - if something is too complicated, the discussions should move to another page until a decision is reached. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Merging

I think that the speedy renaming criteria should also apply to speedy merging, i.e. the same case as a speedy rename, but the target also exists. The only problem I can see with this is if we have two categories on different topics which are a 'speedy merge' away from each other. Any thoughs? Objections? SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion of categories and 'all' subcategories

• Where is the policy that governs the mass deletion of a category and all its subcategories? This is being proposed in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20 and other places.

• The proponents offer no policy reasons for the deletions, they just don't like the idea of such (ethnic) categories. The proponents have not listed all the subcategories to be deleted, so the reader is left guessing what is really involved here. The proponents have only provided notice of the proposed deletion in the pages having the topmost supercategory (a notice that has changed from 'deletion' to 'mass deletion' about 6 days after the original notice); no notice has been added to any or all the sub-categories involved. Even if such notices were to be provided, no notice has been provided to the article editors who made use of the categories--so the primary interested parties, who probably do not monitor the 'categories for deletion' page, are given no notice of the proposed change.

• While I do not agree with the proposal, I am more alarmed by the method or lack of method used in this mass category deletion process.

• Thanks Hmains 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Where can a review of deletion/re-naming decision be taken up? TIA, --Gurubrahma 12:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any category-specific review page, so I assume Wikipedia:Deletion review is the appropriate spot. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

who decides and why?

This policy has details of 'how' to do deletes, but lacks detail on certain critical 'who' and 'why'. For example, it is not clear, given the meaning of Wikipedia:Consensus, that a consensus can be produced by several editors just saying 'keep' or 'delete' with no reasoning provided. Voting cannot, in and of itself, produce consensus; it just produces a vote count. Also, "who" has the authority to decide whether there is a 'consensus' and whether the 'consensus' is to 'keep' or 'delete'?

More importantly, there should be a large distinction between renaming categories and deleting categories. Renaming is often an improvement. On the other hand, absolute deletion destroys the work of many editors and should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances, when clearly defined policies of Wikipedia are violated by retaining the categories. (Whatever these policies are also need to be found and reviewed.) The distaste of those editors who actually monitor the 'categories for deletion' page should never be held in higher regard than the article/category editors who created and used the categories, not higher than the readers who might benefit from the categories in question. Thanks Hmains 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

transclude Speedy criteria

The Speedy criteria are used in two places, and had diverged slightly. Also, typographical errors fixed here had not been fixed at WP:CFDS. They now both use Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria.

--William Allen Simpson 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

categories used in policies/guidelines

Templates for deletion states:

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

Is it reasonable to expect that the same process should take place here, with respect to maintenance categories? -- nae'blis 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Informing the creators is being ignored

This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories that don't meet policy classifications

The policy deals with these category classifications:

• Speedy delete
• Childless categories
• Template/category overlap

Where is the policy for categories that don't fall into one of these classificatons? (See Category:Fauna by country and its attendant discussion page as an example.)—Chidom ^talk  19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Subcategory procedure

Whether here or elsewhere, the policy regarding deleting subcategories of nominated categories needs to be specifically spelled out. What is listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Procedure III. is not clear enough; it says to list the subcategories (though even that is not really clear); nowhere is it stated that all subcategories need the {{cfd}} tag added on their pages as well. My personal opinion is that requiring the {{cfd}} tag to be placed on every subcategory page will discourage or preclude categories with massive numbers of subcats from being nominated for deletion. (Again, see Category:Fauna by country and its discussion page.) I added the tag on 133 subcategory pages. Since I don't know how to write bots, this was largely done by hand. I do have the advantage of a macro program that helped somewhat, but it was still an onerous manual task. I have posted this comment on the talk page for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion as well.—Chidom ^talk  19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot missing here

Is this a subpage of some other policy? I'm trying to find how to get categories renamed, and Wikipedia:Renaming categories redirects here, but there's actually no information on how to rename categories that aren't speedy renames. What's missing? Stevage 09:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to precedent-setting conversation

I removed

"* Link to precedent-setting conversations from /resolved."

from the closure section as this is never done. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/resolved's historyTim! 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

and also "* Save interesting conversations in /resolved; discard uninteresting conversations."

I wonder who would have decided which CFD discussions are interesting? ;) Tim! 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial closes

I think this section could do with overhauling. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved is marked as historical. I would recommend removing

1. Move the discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved.
2. Post a note or template on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion inviting further comment.

and possibly add relisting on CFD as an alternative to closing as keep (I occaisionly do this where only limited discussion has taken place). Tim! 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Childless categories

I also wonder at the necessity of waiting 30 days to delete an empty category when it has been nominated but achieved no consensus. Tim! 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, it looks rather like unnecessary bureaucracy to me. Worth removing? On the whole though this page needs wholesale revision. This page is policy after all, it should be the authoritative port-of-call for anyone interested in CfD process.

Xdamr^talk 15:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming & clarification

One more thing, what about the name? Wikipedia:Category renaming redirects here, we discuss Keep, Merge, and No consensus—is Wikipedia:Category deletion policy really the best name?

Xdamr^talk 15:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Category deletion, renaming and merging policy".. could do, a bit clunky though ;). It might be worth doing a whole new draft and then seeing what people think of it. Tim! 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help reformulate these various CfD guidelines into something coherent and up-to-date. CfD really isn't as well explained as it could be, coverage is all rather piecemeal.

There are, to my mind, three main areas; how categories should be used (from a writer's POV), how to nominate categories for CfD and engage with the debate, and how CfD discussions should be closed and the categories dealt with (for benefit of admins). Just about all the existing policies/guidelines can be put into one of these three boxes. Once this is done then each area should be made conceptually coherent.

As far as this page goes, it ought to form the basis of the third of these. If it is to be a one-stop-shop then it ought to include the CfD-related material that is to be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Category_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Categories_for_Discussion_page. We could then transclude relevant sections of this new page onto other pages as appropriate. Make this the master copy, so that a change here updates all across WP.

How does that sound as a broad concept?

Xdamr^talk 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the relevent sections of those guidelines should be added here to provide an entire overview of the CFD process, as you say, a one-stop shop. Tim! 16:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've renamed the policy page as Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies which is how it was described in the templates. I agree that the guidance is still confusing to the newbie and wants more rearranging. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The best bet would be merging to WP:DEL and Wikipedia:Deletion process. But calling this the "discussion policy" is kind of silly because we don't need policies about discussions. >Radiant< 08:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Do categories such as Category:Shadyville Entertainment artists get deleted, since there is no "Shadyville Entertainment" article? I mean, categories for artists of certain record labels, but there is no page for that record label. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 03:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why "Closing debates" first?

Why is the "Closing debates" section listed first? Wouldn't it make more sense to put it after the parts that discuss how and why to start a category deletion debate? -- HiEv 09:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced categories, validity of which is being contested

While many categories maybe relevant and helpful, categorisation is not easy. For example the categorisation of psychological/affective states as emotions is contested in the specialised psychological literature. Nevertheless the category:emotion exist and may imply pyschological ideas without any source. To what extent do categories comply to core guidlines such as WP:Reliable, WP:V and WP:OR?? Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

speedy delete policy - 4 days or 72 hours?

• Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy says empty cats can be deleted after 72 hours.
• WP:CSD says 4 days - in other words, 96 hours.
• {{Db-c1}} says 4 days

What's the correct answer?

Discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#speedy delete policy - 4 days or 72 hours?.

-Stepheng3 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes in nomination

There is a note on the project page stating in relation with speedy renaming and merging "If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria". As of late I have noticed one nominator who has repeatedly changed his nominations and/or added other related categories to his nominations. Often this makes it impossible to know whether the opinions of commenting editors relate to the current proposal.

I propose to make the above note a little stronger "If the nominator decides to change a nomination, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one (as long as it still meets the speedy criteria)", and add a note with the same content to the project page in relation with non-speedy nominations as well. Apart from that I think changes in the nomination (apart form typos) should be sufficient reason for immediate administrative closure of the nomination. What are your opinions? Debresser (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As much as I love our anarchist, it-ain't-like-nothin-else slant, we really could learn a thing or two from, oh, the 848457 perfectly valid procedures developed in other fields. One of these is to separate the proposal "should be deleted under X88" from the arguments "because...". Arguments should change: if you made a stupid argument, you should remove it from your reasoning, to make things easier to read. Often we end up with people supporting arguments instead of proposals, which is really weird. Since proposals with votes should never change, restarting it would be the correct thing to do, though restarting the same proposal with different argumentation should be prohibited.    M   22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that for clarity's sake, I have to split my proposal into three:

If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria.

1. remove the words "based on comments", since it doesn't matter for what reason the nomination was changed, only that it was changed
2. addopt this same rule for non-speedy nominations as well (like this: If the nominator decides to change a nomination, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one.)
3. make a new rule that any change, minor as it may be, to the nomination itself (not its rationale), apart from the adding of related categories, is not allowed and will result in immedeate administrative closure of the nomination.

Debresser (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1, yes, 2, not sure, 3, too strong - just a revert, 4, +restarting the same proposal with different arguments is bad, and should be closed. You might want to wait a bit on this, since it looks like the redundant parts are about to be killed and the remaining things merged - best re-proposed at the target of the merge.    M   23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to stick to 3, because often even minor changes make the difference between an "agree" or "oppose", or any of the other possible opinions (including alternative proposals). And a revert is not possible, because the nominator has factually withdrawn the old nomination (by replacing it with a new one). I agree with 4, and would phrase it like this: If a nominator want to make a major change in the rationale of a nomination, he should instead withdraw the nomination, and draft a new one. If he fails to do so, the nomination will be subject to administrative closure.

I'm not sure there will be a merge, because so far 2 editors, including myself, agree only with revoking the "policy" status, but not with a merger. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought this contained some actual policy statements that were not replicated elsewhere. If that's not the case, the whole thing can be removed per redundancy. You want "she or he" or "the nominator", by the way.    M   23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)