< December 6 December 8 >

December 7

Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not restore Members category, and purge the parent category. I processed this as a deletion and then restored selectively as suggested by GO'F below. For the diffs, see [1]. – Fayenatic London 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose restoring Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted back in 2007, which was probably a mistake then but clearly seems to have grown into a mistake now, as Category:Council on Foreign Relations is now being misused as a catch-all for the members thereof. Back in 2007, someone claimed that the manual list that existed at the CFR page (which now exists at its own page, Members of the Council on Foreign Relations) is a better place, but I disagree. As of 2014, the CFR has almost 5,000 members, probably half or more of whom have a Wiki page. It makes little sense to maintain a list of such people manually when a category could do the work. (Note that I'm not suggesting a merge. The existing CFR category serves its own purpose.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Five votes for deletion on a site with thousands of contributors hardly constitutes a consensus, but I know others will disagree with that. It seemed like a classic case of "I don't like this" rather than a decision rooted in Wikipedia policy. It makes no sense to try to maintain a potential 2,000-person list manually when a category would do the work. Most importantly, since the current CFR category has been misused over 100 times by Wiki editors who clearly expect there to be a "Members of the Council on Foreign Relations" category, restoring this category would solve multiple problems while creating none. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, there were seven votes for deletion, versus one for keeping. In my view, seven votes for deletion certainly does constitute a fairly strong consensus, especially at CFD. I don't know what site have you been editing on, but I've been closing discussions on Wikpedia for a number of years now, and if I saw that discussion, I would regard it as a strong consensus to delete. And a category doesn't "do the work" at all. Articles still have to be added to the category, just as they would have to be added to a list. I don't think it was an "IDONTLIKEIT" situation at all: basically, what the users were saying is that this is a non-defining characteristic for individuals categorized. And that is probably the most basic principle of Wikipedia categorization/overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot easier to add a category than it is to add to a list and then make sure it's properly alphabetized, etc. Beyond that, the idea that a 7-1 vote in favor or against anything is a "strong consensus" just shows how silly these discussions typically are, with only a tiny fraction of editors even aware of their existence. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one's forced to participate. If you feel they are silly, you don't have to be here either. What I think is silly is that you think that we should be able to ignore a 7-1 decision because you disagree with it. Regarding a 7-1 decision as consensus may not be an ideal situation of community decision making, but ignoring it because one user disagrees with it would be worse. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current CFR category serves a purpose, so renaming it doesn't seem to make sense. As for the "Board Members of ..." suggestion, that seems like an overly narrow category, plus it would undoubtedly require constant policing due to erroneous use. There are pages and pages of "Members of ..." categories on Wikipedia, for organizations of far less importance and prestige than the CFR and with far fewer (notable) members. It's unclear to me why this category was ever deleted. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. You want to delete the category for CFR? There are literally pages and pages of "Members of ..." categories on Wikipedia, and CFR probably ranks in the top 2% when it comes to membership and prestige. Are we going to delete hundreds of other categories, or is this a one-off "I don't like it" that you want to enforce? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what you're talking about. I'm not saying anything should be deleted. I'm saying Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations should stay deleted. Your proposal is to restore the category; my !vote is to oppose that action. I'm saying we should purge the members from Category:Council on Foreign Relations, since it is not a membership category. I'm not suggesting it be deleted; it's fine to exist to contain the main article, the list article for members, and the subcategories. You keep throwing out allegations of "IDONTLIKEIT", but I've provided a guideline-based reason for agreeing with the deletion. You have not provided a guideline-based reason for restoring it. Arguing that other stuff exists that is just as bad is, well, an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case, I'll nominate you to perform those 100+ deletions. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What deletions? Do you mean removing the category from the articles? If so, I would be happy to make sure that happens. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's not an automated process, is it? I wouldn't mind editing the category as an improvement, but that sort of deletion-only housecleaning almost seems like a waste of time, especially if it's not automated. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be automated with the right bot. Alternatively, as a roundabout way of accomplishing it, we could just have the standard CFD deletion bot remove everything from the category and delete the category. Then the category could be immediately restored by an admin and populated with the few articles and subcategories that actually belong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian medical television series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Singaporean medical television series and parent Category:Medical television series. – Fayenatic London 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming/upgrading Category:Asian medical television series to:
Nominator's rationale: This proposal is to upgrade this category to four “by country” categories, as this category is not a subcategory of any category relating to Asian health or Asian television. There are already three Asian countries in the parent category. Hugo999 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth in Armenia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this as it serves no purpose. There is already one sub-category "Youth sport in Armenia" Hovhannes Karapetyan 21:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lhasa Prefecture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 22:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lhasa (just like Shigatse and Chamdo, which I made separate speedy nominations, but the situation with the Lhasa category hierarchy is more complex) is a prefecture-level city, and the former "non-city prefecture" does not exist as such. Therefore, to conform with actual status (as well as article title), the category should simply be "Lhasa." (I say that the situation is a bit more complex than Chamdo and Shigatse because as merged the Lhasa category should actually be a subcategory of the parent categories of the current Lhasa Prefecture category; however, that can be relatively easily fixed in the post-merger process.) --Nlu (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Related categories that should be renamed as part of the process:
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prefectures of Tibet

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conceptually, there might be potentially a difference (as prefecture-level divisions include prefecture-level cities), but there is no reason I can see for there to be two categories that are effectively identical to each other as implemented. --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Howie B albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not an album by this artist but a mixtape assembled by him. We have no scheme of Category:Mixtape albums by compiler. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elliot Goldenthal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, contents are interlinked, and are insufficient to justify an eponymous category, see WP:OCEPON. I have added category links into the article, which also has a link to the Commons category with the portraits. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two subcats and one main article--all of which are already interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English people of Carib descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: double upmerge. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems to be a bit premature, per WP:SMALLCAT to resort to subcategorise Category:British people of Carib descent when there is only one article in the entire category tree. Caribs, aka Kalina people are a new one on me, but I guess there's a slim chance there's more than one notable Carib in the UK. Sionk (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though Caribs seem to be more South American than West Indian (I'd say not at all West Indian). Sionk (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Welsh people of Berber descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Welsh people of African descent, per WP:SMALLCAT. I can't envisage any scope for expanding the membership of this overly specific category. Sionk (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so double upmerge is unnecessary. Sionk (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More