So, umm... What exactly is broken about CfD? Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair question. To my mind, what is broken about it, at the simplest level, is that it is disconnected from the wider community of ordinary editors. More information can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_2009#There_is_a_problem_at_WP:CfD. Agreeing on exactly what is wrong, or even that something is indeed wrong, has been a problem, and at this time, "Wikipedians who say CfD is broken" are a minority", when it comes to editors wiling to participate in extended discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have an idea of how to deal with that? "Disconnected from the wider community" to me sounds like you would like more participation at CFD, which would be great. If that's the case, though, we may be stuck with the saying You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. --Kbdank71 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I happen to disagree with the statement that Cfd "is disconnected from the wider community of ordinary editors". That is to say:
- Every corner of Wikipedia has its regulars. The question is whether there are enough participants from other areas of interest on Wikipedia. And I think this is the case with Cfd. (At Tfd matters are worse, if you ask me.) I consider myself a wikignome, with special attention for templates and in lesser degree categories. I see a certain amount of non-regulars here. We have quite a few new and active editors here. True, some people are stuck in certain patterns, but that is only human. Afd has its sworn deletionists also. All in all, I am sure something positive will come out of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- My wife always calls me a natural taxonomist; I've always enjoyed classifications, categories, subject hierarchies...that's part of what brings me to CFD so frequently, and what led me to spend countless hours creating categories when they were first implemented in 2004 (many of which have since been renamed to unpack acronyms, change prepositions, etc., but what can you do...). There's a need for and value in pure information organization, and there are contributors who spend a lot of time on that and there are those who really aren't interested, except maybe when the categories they've created get evaluated. That there are disagreements as to how best to organize information should not be surprising. That it ever descends into name-calling, personal feuds, and crusades is disappointing and avoidable, but above all else unacceptable. Postdlf (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)