- Category:Phineas Taylor Barnum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
One vote was cast to delete in what was a name change proposal. I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. But those that worked for Barnum are NOT overcategorized. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm recusing from !voting on CFDs at the moment in an attempt to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, but without actually !voting, I'm not sure in what sense the outcome reflected the discussion.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom in that discussion actually supported deletion in a later comment. There are thus two deletes and one rename. I do not see the close as unreasonable, and so it has to be endorsed. That said, the debate was somewhat inadequate - there was no extensive discussion of the proposal to delete. My understanding is that this is the way with most CFDs. I think relisting is likely unnecessary; but if others find it appropriate I will not oppose. Tim Song (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Too many truly notable figures fit into the category (Tom Thumb, etc.) for it to have been so readily deleted. BTW, "Phineas T. Barnum" is also common -- he is the only "showman" to have his bust on a US coin - and for reasons not associated with the circus at all. Collect (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Tim Song. And per the "they could have 200 categories" argument. Any article that has 200 categories has too many, period. Relist if desired. --Kbdank71 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point swooshed by your head. My statement read: "I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. ..." You read it to mean the opposite.
- Doesn't change my stance, however. Still endorse per Tim Song, and (whether it applies to this category or not) 200 categories is too many. The fact that I misread you just means that I now agree with that part of your statement. --Kbdank71 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (original nominator). Essentially, it was 2–0 in favour of deletion. Two other users commented but did not opine on deletion vs. retention. The discussion was open for 12 days. {{Barnum}} was created, which I think accomplishes the same thing in a more sensible way, since we don't usually categorize people "by people". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have nav boxes, lists and categories. Having one doesn't negate having the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but users are permitted to choose to keep one type and delete another type. That's what has happened here. Of course there is no automatic rule that "[h]aving one doesn't negate having the others", but that's why there are discussions on these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete just does not equal a consensus of deletion. The closing admin's failure to provide a clear and concise justification for why consensus was blatantly ignored only adds a nail to this coffin. That we have admins who still believe the knowingly false position that the existence of a template is a valid argument for deletion of a category only shows how utterly dysfunctional CfD truly is. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I asked you to explain your "knowingly false" statement, could you do it without further ignoring WP:AGF? And remember: (from WP:CLN) The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. --Kbdank71 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The belief that the existence of a template justifies deletion of a category is knowingly false, particularly from someone like Good Olfactory who is well aware of WP:CLN. The sentence you quote offers diddlysquat in terms of justifying deletion. You studiously ignore its direct statement that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". Good Olfactory's vote is in blatant violation of this guideline and should be ignored as invalid. Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh ... wha ... ? That's certainly an interesting approach. Can we ignore your vote here as a blatant violation of the agf guideline, then? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh ... wha ... ? I guess the misrepresentation may not be deliberate, after all, though only if you are unfamiliar with WP:CLN. If you are familiar with that guideline and are unable to find any statement therein that supports deleting a category because a corresponding template exists, I stand behind my original statement. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Round and round and round we go. Alan, I wish I could say that dealing with you was anything but draining, but it's not. So I'll just stand by my original statement and leave it in the capable hands of the DRV closer. --Kbdank71 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same closed CfD shop goes round and round, refusing to clean up the mess it has created. Kris, I wish I could say that dealing with you was anything but draining, but it's rather tiring dealing with the continued disruption to support deletion at all costs, even when it directly harms navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note (original nominator). Alansohn said above that there was "Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete". Just to be clear, I was one of the original votes to rename, after which I said I preferred deletion, so it was more like 1–0 in favour of renaming and 2–0 in favour of deletion, with no one really opposing either. I said if it was kept, I still supported the rename suggestions. (And still do. If the category were restored, it certainly should be at Category:P. T. Barnum to match the main article and the template.) I see the closing admin has "retired" so he's not around to defend himself against attacks of believing "knowingly false statements" and "blatantly ignor[ing] consensus", but I think when the entire discussion is read it's not too difficult to see what the various users' opinions were. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse 2-1 in favour - not the most immense participation, but discussion was left open for 12 days and decisions are made by those who turn up. Navbox was created as a substitute for a category which was, against general practice, categorising people-by-people. --Xdamrtalk 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist nom was for a rename, became a deletion discussion. I suspect people with opinions on the deletion may have chosen to not contribute to the rename discussion but would have to a deletion discussion. No harm in relisting given the discussion wasn't overflowing with voices. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|