Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 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 . – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment/question. There was a pretty strong consensus to delete the category. What would be the rationale for reversing that decision, apart from you disagreeing with it and Category:Council on Foreign Relations being misused as a category for members? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Rename --FRom Category:Council on Foreign Relations to Category:Board Members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The article indicates that there are a significant number of Board members, all covered in articles, and no dount there have been others in the past.  Categories of this kind are liable to pick up people with a marginal association with an organisation.  Mere membership should not be sufficient for categorisation.  Any people who never were board members shoudl be purged.  I do not think it will be necessary to re-create the prsent category as Council on Foreign Relations will make a suitable main article for a category on Board Members.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Do not re-create. I'm not convinced that re-creation of the category is justified. For starters, I believe that a person being a member of this group is a non-defining characteristic for that person, so the category fails the most basic principle of categorization (see WP:DEFINING). The solution here is to purge Category:Council on Foreign Relations and then patrol the category and remove bio articles for people who are members. It's an unpleasant task but it beats giving up by just re-creating an unjustified category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Okay, in that case, I'll nominate you to perform those 100+ deletions. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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  L ondon 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming/upgrading Category:Asian medical television series to:


 * Category:Singaporean medical television series
 * Category:Japanese medical television series
 * Category:Malaysian medical television series
 * Category:Taiwanese medical television series
 * 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)


 * Comment shouldn't a category tree by continent be created? Category:Television programs from Asia or something. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The proposal is to split the category, but it only has about eight members, which means that it is not large enough to need splitting. The best solution will be to keep it, but ensure that all members are categorised in the form Category:Singaporean television series.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per small size of current category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: As 5 of the 8 are from Singapore, with 1 each from Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan (& 2 more Japanese series in the parent category. I will amend to create a category for Singapore and propose to merge the others into the parent category. As I said before, this category is not in any categories relating say to Asian health, so I can see no justification for retaining it. PS: There may be some justification for an “Asian” category for some TV shows/series eg The Apprentice Asia but these are mainly syndicated shows (eg Masterchef, Top Model or Dancing with the Stars) or news and business shows. I don’t think it is necessary for categories like this one. And most television categories are by country only but not by continent, so any continent categories need not include country categories as subcategories. Hugo999 (talk) 03:28, 11 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: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  L ondon 23:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting youth in armenia


 * 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)


 * Oppose - Surely Category:Youth sport in Armenia should be a subcategory of both Category:Youth in Armenia and Category:Sport in Armenia Hugo999 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hugo; I have also added another subcategory and 1 more article and I am sure there are other articles which can be added or written in this topic. Tim! (talk) 07:09, 8 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  L ondon 22:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Lhasa Prefecture to Category:Lhasa
 * 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)
 * Related categories that should be renamed as part of the process:
 * Rename Category:Populated places in Lhasa Prefecture to Category:Populated places in Lhasa
 * Rename Category:Lhasa Prefecture geography stubs to Category:Lhasa geography stubs


 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Prefectures of Tibet to Category:Prefecture-level divisions of Tibet
 * 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)


 * Support Prefecture-level divisions will by design incorporate prefectures, so this is the most sensible option given the existence of something like city-prefectures. SFB 19:31, 10 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: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)
 * Propose deleting howie b albums


 * 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)


 * Oppose - if something is described as an 'album' that's good enough isn't it? Anyway, a Category:Mixtape albums would contain, erm, albums, wouldn't it? It's in the Category:Albums tree after all. Howie B seems to be a well established DJ with a significant back catalogue, so there's scope to populate this category. Sionk (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Found a couple articles on Howie B albums, Turn the Dark Off and Down with the Dawn, which were never categorized by the artist. That should satisfy the requirement of WP:ALBUMS. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Per Star...'s work. Thanks. And The initial album was categorized under Category:Albums by artist which is inappropriate. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 9 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: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  L ondon 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting elliot goldenthal


 * 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)


 * Delete, with thanks to user:Koavf for interlinking the contents before nominating the parent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. reason to create: a parent category of Category:Elliot Goldenthal albums and Category:Compositions by Elliot Goldenthal for their interlink; there is Category:Elliot Goldenthal in Wikimedia Commons. --Tijd-jp (talk) 16:44, 12 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: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  L ondon 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:English people of Carib descent to Category:British people of Carib descent
 * 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)


 * Upmerge to Category:People of Carib descent; there seem to be 5 globally so it is ridiculous to split out at all. Oculi (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Double upmerge also to Category:English people of West Indian descent. Although the sole current member is already in that category, more might be added before closure. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Double upmerge per Fayanetic (or even plain delete) -- This is about the categorisation of a person living in England, apparetnly without a drop of English blood. Her article claims 5 descent ethnicities including Guyana.  Carib is a disambiguation page, which distinguishes Island Carib from those of South America.  In the islands, there has been so much interbreeding between the native Caribs and people of African descent, that I doubt whether there are many people who can call truly themselves Caribs.  The situation is perhaps a little less stark in Guyana.  We have no citation for the lady's ethnicity.  How amny generations back did she have a pure Carib ancestor?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 9 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.

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  L ondon 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Welsh people of Berber descent to Category:Welsh people of African descent
 * 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)


 * Double upmerge, although the current sole member page is already in the other parent Category:British people of Berber descent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, so double upmerge is unnecessary. Sionk (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge -- Thea rticle says that the one member is of Berber Moroccan origin, with a piped-link to Morocco. There are several Berber groups in the countries of the African north coast.  Berber is an ethnicity; Moroccan is a nationality.  Since we do not like triple intersections, the article should have a series of double ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 9 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.