- Category:Top Gear people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I don't really think the outcome we have is the desired outcome. With only two editors supporting the status quo, four for delete/upmerge (including myself), and one keep but purge, I don't think the correct consensus has been called in this case. Following the "no consensus" close, I purged all articles that fell foul of WP:PERFCAT, but these have been added back in by one of the "keep" camp, which I don't think is really in the spirit of the discussion. I've discussed with the closing admin, who agrees that it's close to a consensus that something should change. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The discussion was correctly closed by Good Olfactory as no consensus because there was no clear consensus. I voted keep because a discussion had only just finished that resulted in Category:Top Gear presenters being upmerged to this one. As I said then, the outcome of that CfD should be taken into account when considering this category. One of the other people who voted keep actually suggested that Category:Top Gear presenters be recreated and everyone moved back. I'm also more than a little bit concerned about the way Robsinden has gone about trying to get this cat deleted. First he proposed Category:Top Gear presenters and when that didn't end the way he wanted he nominated this cat the same day. After the discussion closed, again not as he wished, he deleted almost everyone from the cat, ignoring the outcome of both CfDs. Now, over a month later he's requesting a deletion review, after the deletions were reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first discussion found that the category failed PERFCAT "as-is" and "Several participants noted that they should be in the people category, which would mean there is consensus to upmerge". Clearly it did not find that including the people in the parent category failed PERFCAT, or the category would have just been deleted, without upmerging. And no, Category:Star Trek script writers is not the same. Note that this category is part of a well established "<Foo> people" category tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse I'd tend to agree that PERFCAT would have us get rid of this category. I also think that for regulars, that's fairly silly. But either way, there was no clear outcome, though IMO deletion would also have been within discretion given the strength-of-argument of each side. Hobit (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – While I also agree that this category is probably unnecessary (and said so in the discussion), the closer was correct that there was no consensus as to whether PERFCAT applies to the category as a whole. I suggest we move on with a multiple-category nomination for this and similar, a la TV writers by series, with the aim to listify the many program-specific categories that have popped up. Ibadibam (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Consensus was not found for what to do, even if there is arguably a rough consensus for doing something. WP:TROUT the nomination for repeated nominations, noting the brevity of the nominations, and the subsequent purging that smacks of an end run around the nuiscience of others' differing opinions. Recommend a renewed effort on finding agreement on how to fix things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse because there was no consensus for any specific action. CFD is "categories for discussion", not deletion so things could have been continued but maybe in a different forum. WP:PERFCAT is sometimes misused, as in this case. It is presented as an aspect of overcategorization which says "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics" as so PERFCAT is not intended to be used to remove categories where the concept is defining for a performer. Performers ought to be categorised by their defining characteristics. Following the discussion it was at best controversial and was probably wrong to remove Hammond and May from the category.[1][2] Removal was unlikely to be accepted as a "desired outcome". Thincat (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PERFCAT is there precisely to remove categories like this, as the general consensus for years has been a preference to handle this information in articles and lists, since a show's page usually contains a cast and crew list already, and a performer's page includes a filmography or other list of appearances, so it's redundant to create a parallel categorization system. And WP:NONDEF specifically points out that any characteristic that falls under the overcategorization guideline is inherently non-defining, so it's impossible for a concept to be "defining for a performer", as you argue. Ibadibam (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Relisting is the better course for an aberrant decision that needs further attention. CFD like the other XfD processes is used both for deletion and for discussions leading to other outcomes, and have always been used for both purposes. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – PERFCAT does not overrule the fundamental purpose of categorisation, namely to capture defining characteristics, and it is simply false to maintain that 'Top Gear' is not defining for the likes of May, Hammond, Clarkson. Oculi (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
