Cleaning upEdit

I can't seem to find policies for cleaning up this page. There are some suggestions on here that haven't had support, and don't seem that they'll be enacted, (some months old) should I just move them to the archive or do I put the bold warning post (like Captain Mike has done on several in the archive) first? - AJHalliwell 06:05, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the supported suggestions could go to that particular categories talk page, as it is noted in the {newcategory} template for provisional categories -- thats what I did with the discussion for Category:Foods. It seems as suitable, like every other successful nomination to post it to the corresponding talking page. As for the age of the ones to move, definately keep ones that have not been answered, and aged failed over, a 1 month old would be a good start until we can get the page back in order. --Alan del Beccio 06:16, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • For that matter, I don't necessarily see where some of the Provisional categories were ever really agreed upon. As so many of them appear to be half created, based on the large, mixed amount of red and blue links. --Alan del Beccio 06:19, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion on when a category is to be approved (or SOWACITBA)Edit

This page needs to be cleaned up and some policy should be stated for when a category is approved. Currently a category is "approved" when an admin (usually Alan, although he hasn't been around lately, explaining the lack of new categories) comes along and thinks it has "consensus." I am proposing that a category be approved when at least 4 users (including the suggestor) support, with no objections, after a waiting period of a week. There are a lot of categories suggested in October and November that have been named by consensus and haven't been created yet. Also, after 2 months of not reaching a consensus, a category should then be moved to the archive.--Tim Thomason 01:05, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this has rested for over a year, but as I read it we still have no official policy when a category is agreed upon. I agree with Tim's proposal above regarding number of people and time. Kennelly 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Time for a change... Edit

As brought up here, the approval for category suggestions is just taking too long for some people's tastes... including my own. Therefore, I have a suggestion on how to speed things up. To reiterate what I said in the talk page I just linked above: We should make a change to the cat suggestion policy stating that categories can be created within 7 days, even if there are no votes for approval, so long as there are no opposing votes (much like the featured article nomination page). Either that, or we could get rid of the cat suggestion system altogether, which is probably a bit more extreme and likely won't have much support. So I think specifying a 7-day rule would be a good compromise be those who want to keep the suggestion page and those who want things done a bit quicker. Thoughts? Oh, by the way, I'll be implementing the new policy in 7 days, unless there is any opposition. Hey, I'm trying to get things done here. ;) --From Andoria with Love 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The approval process has been added as a way to find a consensus before categories are created, for the simple reason that a category that needs to be changed means much more work than any other change because of a later consensus. So, while I agree that this process should be made a little easier, I wouldn't consider the complete removal of the process a good idea. If we follow the "7-day rule" suggestion from above, it should also be made clear that a later consensus could still lead to changes to the created categories. -- Cid Highwind 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know the reasoning for the approval process, I just wanted to add something to make it go a little faster. I agree, removing the process entirely probably isn't the best thing. A note about a subsequent consensus for later changes is a good idea, though. --From Andoria with Love 16:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Cid's reasoning. But may I also suggest... with votes, a shorter time period. Without votes, 7 days. -- Sulfur 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about three days with supporting votes, seven days with no votes? --From Andoria with Love 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Provisional Categories Edit

I think the provisional categories section needs to be changed.--UESPA 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm... ok. How? What needs changing? -- Sulfur 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the current two in there have had there provisional tags removed and Category:Andorian starship classes has a provisional tag on it.--UESPA 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That is basically a mistake. The Andorian case is essentially just because it is new, and really could be removed momentarily. It would seem that the {{newcategory}} tag = "provisional" which wasn't the case, there, necessarily. In the case of the two listed are still rather sub-par in their quality, use and content. While they are not currently being discussed, they could/should be. --Alan 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling it out Edit

It seems a bit weird that we would state there is a policy, and then not link to it. Also, said policy isn't marked very well, and is only described as being similar to the deletion discussion one, which isn't very helpful since we're telling someone to go read a different policy to get an idea on this one. That said, I suggest this be added to/replace the text on Memory Alpha:Category tree, with a proper link from here and maybe a header saying something to the effect that the following text is a policy:

  • Suggestions without any opposition can be created after at least 7 days. If there have been no supporting votes, these categories should be considered provisional and have the {{newcategory}} template added to them when created. Remember to add them to the provisional categories section on the suggestion page as well, so people know they are there.
  • Suggestions with supporting votes can be created after at least 4 days. If there are three or more votes supporting the name, the category doesn't need to be considered provisional.
  • Suggestions with opposition will be removed to the archive after at least 2 weeks of inactivity.
  • After suggesting a category, don't expect anyone else to actually create it for you! While someone is bound to come along eventually, it won't happen as quickly as it would if you did it yourself.
  • All categories may be changed at a later date, by consensus, to meet the ever changing demands of the wiki.

The current text isn't very helpful to users, and this seems to be the system we are currently operating on, more or less. - Archduk3 10:21, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well after accidentally reverting your edit, I felt inclined to comment. I agree with most of that. The last two points are especially good. I would make it more explicit that any user can create a category (so long as these conditions are met), not just administrators.
Personally, I'm not really fond of provisional categories at all and would rather we cut them out. It seems that we are creating more work for the sake of it. If problems arise with a category, it can be brought up on the talk page. If there are no problems, then no worries. It's not like we have "provisional articles" or "provisional images". Rather they're continually refined, as your point 5 states.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:21, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it to be a bit more clear that you should create the categories that you suggest. Since anyone can suggest a category, that means anyone can create one, and further text surrounding these core points should make that clear.

As for the provisional categories, I tend to agree, they really are just an extra layer of bureaucracy now. I included them in these since we currently have the system, and as long as we do we should at least try to use it, but I would support removing it. - Archduk3 11:46, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

start a new discussion button Edit

This button shouldn't be here: the page is divided in sections in which users are supposed to post, while the button starts a new section under those very wisely added predefined sections. Effectively using it breaks the system. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:23, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Blame Wikia on that one. We can't alter that one. -- sulfur (talk) 10:22, April 6, 2015 (UTC)