Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 22 December 24 >

December 23[edit]

Category:Italian senator ( Kingdom of Italy )[edit]

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: rename to Category:Senators of the Kingdom of Italy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Italian senator ( Kingdom of Italy ) to Category:Italian Senators in the Kingdom of Italy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article is obviously misformed due to grammatical mistakes and spacing issues. I'm open to another name as well.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (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:Railway station closings by year navbox templates[edit]

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: already deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway station closings by year navbox templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Orphaned category created as a result of a failed experiment in adding additional date related boxes at the bottom of railway station articles. Associated templates now all deleted. Stewart (talk | edits) 21:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reason for deletion changed to {{db-empty}} --Stewart (talk | edits) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (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:Information industries[edit]

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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Information industries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Inadequately populated category for a loosely-defined concept. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2008 (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:CRGS Headmasters[edit]

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. (If anyone's working on listifying, the two articles in it at the time of deleteion were Samuel Parr and Percy Shaw Jeffrey.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CRGS Headmasters to Category:Colchester Royal Grammar School headmasters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out the obscure initials. Decapitalize Headmasters per WP:MOS. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify – even Eton doesn't have a category for headmasters. They should be listed within the article for the school, Colchester Royal Grammar School. If kept rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Occuli. It is unlikely that many headmasters will be notable enough to warrant having articles. Accordingly this is likely to remain a minute category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2008 (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:Satu Mare demographics[edit]

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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Satu Mare demographics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category contains a single template. Very little possibility of future expansion. If kept, should be renamed to indicate that it is a template category. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2008 (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:City demographics[edit]

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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:City demographics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category was created for a single template and does not serve any navigational purpose. If kept, it should be renamed to indicate that it is a template category. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (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.

Expatriate footballer triple-intersections[edit]

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: upmerge to "Expatriate footballers in Y" and delete. Kbdank71 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Algerian expatriate footballers in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American expatriate footballers in England
Category:American expatriate footballers in Norway
Category:American expatriate soccer players in Canada
Category:Argentine expatriate footballers in England
Category:Argentine expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:Argentine expatriate footballers in Spain
Category:Australian expatriate footballers in England
Category:Australian expatriate footballers in Japan
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in England
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in France
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Germany
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Japan
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Norway
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Portugal
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Spain
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in the Netherlands
Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:British expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:English expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:Scottish expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Belgium
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Denmark
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in England
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Germany
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Norway
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Sweden
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in the Netherlands
Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players in the United States
Category:Danish expatriate footballers in England
Category:Danish expatriate footballers in Germany
Category:Danish expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Danish expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in England
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in Germany
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in Spain
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:English expatriate footballers in Canada
Category:English expatriate footballers in Spain
Category:English expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland
Category:English footballers who have played in Scotland
Category:English footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923)
Category:Finnish expatriate footballers in England
Category:Finnish expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Finnish expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:French expatriate footballers in England
Category:French expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:French expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:French expatriate footballers in Spain
Category:French expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:German expatriate footballers in England
Category:German expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:German expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:German expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers in England
Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers in Norway
Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers in Sweden
Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:Iraqi expatriate footballers in Iran
Category:Irish Free State association footballers who played in Northern Ireland
Category:Irish Free State expatriate footballers in England
Category:Irish footballers who played in England (before 1923)
Category:Irish footballers who played in Scotland (before 1923)
Category:Jamaican expatriate soccer players in Canada
Category:Jamaican expatriate soccer players in the United States
Category:New Zealand expatriate soccer players in the United States
Category:Nigerian expatriate footballers in England
Category:Nigerian expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:Nordic expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:North Korean expatriate footballers in Japan
Category:Northern Irish association footballers who have played in the Republic of Ireland
Category:Northern Irish footballers who have played in England
Category:Northern Irish footballers who have played in Scotland
Category:Northern Irish footballers playing in Scotland
Category:Northern Irish footballers who have played in Wales
Category:Norwegian expatriate footballers in England
Category:Norwegian expatriate footballers in Germany
Category:Norwegian expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Norwegian expatriate footballers in Sweden
Category:Norwegian expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:Norwegian expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:Portuguese expatriate footballers in England
Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers who have played in Northern Ireland
Category:Republic of Ireland expatriate footballers in England
Category:Republic of Ireland expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
Category:Scottish expatriate footballers in Canada
Category:Scottish expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:Scottish footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923)
Category:Serbian expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:South African expatriate footballers in England
Category:South African expatriate soccer players in the United States
Category:South Korean expatriate footballers in Japan
Category:Spanish expatriate footballers in England
Category:Spanish expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Denmark
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in England
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in France
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Germany
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Norway
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Romania
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Scotland
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Spain
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in Switzerland
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in the Netherlands
Category:Swedish expatriate footballers in the United States
Category:Trinidad and Tobago expatriate soccer players in Canada
Category:Trinidad and Tobago expatriate soccer players in the United States
Category:Uruguayan expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:Welsh footballers who have played in England
  • more to follow
Nominator's rationale: Delete These types of triple-intersection are the definition of overcategoriation.
  1. There are well over 100 of them already, considering that there are 208 member nations in FIFA there are potentially 20,000 more.
  2. Wikipedia policy advises against the creation of such categories (Wikipedia:Overcategorization).
  3. Consensus has already been reached to delete this type of triple-intersection category here.
  4. These categories offer us no information that cannot be achieved using either catscan or the Wikipedia special search facility (incategory:"Uruguayan footballers" incategory:"Expatriate footballers in Argentina")
  5. The argument that these categories are neccessary due to the need to break up large categories such as expatriate footballers in England into smaller chunks is not valid. Categories like Category:English footballers Category:Living people and Category:1975 births are much larger, and no-one would suggest breaking them up by county, place of birth or month of birth.
  6. The argument that this type of category intersection massively reduces the number of categories per article (by a ratio of 3:1 as previously stated in support of these categories) is not true. Take Rubén Dario Larrosa as a example. He has played outside Argentina in 7 other counties. He would go into 7 Expatriate footballers in Uruguay/Brazil/China/Spain/Indonesia/England/Italy. He does not need to go into category Argentine expatriate footballers because using catscan you can determine all Argentine expatriate footballers by searching Category:Argentine footballers and Category:expatriate footballers to depth 3 ([1]). Using triple intersections to do this you get Argentine Expatriate footballers in Uruguay/Brazil/China/Spain/Indonesia/England/Italy categories. Subdividing the expatriate footballers in Y categories in this way is needless, time consuming, it reduces the utility of the main categories and could lead to the creation of 20,000 categories that could be generated in seconds using catscan.

There has been consensus to delete these types of category before but certain users who were aware of the consensus keep creating and populating more of them and recreating previously deleted ones. A "holding category" was set up to establish the size of the problem, but user:Mayumashu is attempting to have it deleted in order to obstruct the raising of this CfD and ihas been canvassing a number of other supporters of this type of category.

It s no more canvassing, according to wikipedia policy, than discussion on a project page is, until a properly devised nomination for a discussion has been placed here, as this has been. And putting up the improper "holding category" page for deletion has done the trick of having this very well put together nomination be realised. Mayumashu (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These triple-intersections should be upmerged back into their parent category, Expatriate footballers in Y, their nationality is already determined by the apropriate category in Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality. King of the North East 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayumashu, you are beginning to annoy me somewhat with first of adding categories that we don't need, then you want to delete them all, now you are saying keep. You can't seem to make up your mind. You have shown no order and frankly you are starting to confuse me. You seem to be making trouble with these categories the way you are going is very destructive in it's own way. So can you please stop trying to destroy the system. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, mate. Firstly, I didn t restart most of these cat pages. Most were never deleted to begin with because this nomination is the first thorough on this matter - kudos to King of the North East for it. Most pages were never deleted and when, after a few weeks, the footy project guys did not do away with the list aside from the Expat footballers in England, and then, did not reclear the restarted English ones, then it seemed okay to again do a bit of work on repopulating certain ones. But did you even read what I wrote here? Why not address these points. I don't see what s confusing about what I ve said? I m for having these pages (that are well-populated) to subdivide lists but see that it s a losing proposition and therefore want to see a good upmerge. Mayumashu (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have any problem with triple-intersection categories--as long as they have a decent number of pages in them and aren't narrow, arbitrary, trivial, etc. I don't see anything in WP:OCAT that specifically rules out triple intersections. - Stepheng3 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or (if not) Upmerge as suggested by Mayumashu, who did much good work on Booian Fooians, a few months ago. The categories are undesirable in principle as triple intersections, but some are sufficiently populated to be worth having. But delete those between all those England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland (both parts), becasue it is too common for British players to play for clubs in another one of the home countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to these latest two users, I wish there could be a rule of thumb that says at least 5 or 10 (or more? - where to draw the line) items are needed for a subcat page can be created. And, no, I ve looked too and there is nothing in the policy explicitly addressing triple intersection (as a particular form of overcategorisation) Mayumashu (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Peterkingiron: Just removing the British only cats because it is too common for them to play in other home countries wouldn't make much sense. There was a report released a few days ago from the Brazilian FA. It stated that over 200 Brazilian footballers transferred to Portuguese clubs in 2008 Alone. Wouldn't that fall under "too common"? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That list was by continent, whereas the clear bias on wikip is by country, so I disagree that that AfD is a valid precedent. And it does indeed leave us still with a triple intersection, but to reiterate what User:Stepheng3 pointed out, t.i.'s do not violate wikip. policy, nor should they when they can effectively break up huge lists in an informatively useful way Mayumashu (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the seven deleted articles were by continent. China, Japan, Iran, South Korea, and Tajikistan all had similar articles deleted. The relative rarity that an Chinese plays in Europe would support a notability claim; but, I don't see how hundreds of Brazilians playing in Portugal can be notable enough for the triple-categorization. Neier (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by Mayumashu. These categories are useful and will indeed considerably reduce the number of categories in the articles, because all of these players would be listed in the "Fooian expatriates in Booia" and the "Expatriate footballers in Booia" cats anyway. The number of cats won't explode to 20 000 or something like that. How many (notable!) foreign players actually play in African, Asian, even Latin American countries, compared to the Premier League or the Bundesliga? Well, you guys from the footy portal will probably push this through collectively, so I'd also support an upmerge suggested by Mayumashu, IF these cats are actually going to be deleted. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can certainly see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, these are classic triple-intersections and as discrete categories are probably not defining for the subjects. But on the other hand the categories are largely used to subdivide the large contents of "expatriate" categories. I think the deeper problem is with the entire system of classifying people as expatriates, since usually this is not a very defining feature of the person. As I would prefer to see all of the expatriate categories deleted for this reason, I have to agree here that these subcategories of them should be deleted for their non-definingness and their triple-intersection nature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OCAT. The WP:ILIKEIT argument does not work here. Those that like knowing this might consider a Listify as the better solution. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Vegaswikian1. Juzhong (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to listifying the categories with sufficient members to be of interest, although it should be pointed out that such lists already exist for several European leagues, such as Ligue 1, Super League, Serie A, La Liga and more which is another reason for deletion of this type of category (redundancy) King of the North East 20:46, 6 January 2009 (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:Right-wing Populist Parties[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Right-wing Populist Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary category, not useful for creating an encyclopedia. There are many political party categories already. Would make for more troubles than benefits.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- whether a party is populist appears to be POV. However the category is empty: has the nominator emptied it? This pracitce is strongly disapproved, because otehr editors cannot tell how it should be (or was) populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. What about Category:Populist Parties—should probably be a follow-up nomination for this one as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (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:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization and has already been previously deleted (albeit under a slightly different name). Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename Being nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, the only award that all academy members may nominate and vote for, is a strong defining characteristic. I can't think of a film nominated for best picture that did not refere to the nomination in advertising or packaging, and this is a characteristic that most film reviewers find to be defining. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems like a little bit of a slippery slope. While nominations for the Academy Awards' Best Picture award are fairly prominent, I do not want to make this justification for mentioning nominations for the other types of Academy Awards as well as other lesser-known awards. Nominations are already going to be mentioned in the film articles and listed extensively on award articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The debate's been had before and it was previously deleted. As Erik points out, if we allow this, we probably could justify categorizing nominated actors, nominated actresses, nominated directors, nominated screenplays, etc., etc., etc., and it's been decided we wanted to avoid that. With 4 losers per year, I don't think this is at all defining. When you actually look at the list of films that were nominated, you may be surprised about certain films having been nominated (like Babe—WTF?). I don't think there's been a single discussion about an award nomination category that has resulted in a "keep", and I don't think the case here is overwhelming to change direction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Being nominated for an academy award should be mentioned, of course, in articles, but a category is going to lead to Bad Things. The JPStalk to me 10:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nominees are listified by year and categories for nominees are overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2009 (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:Multiracial people by national origin[edit]

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 (no opposition and in line with past deletion of other "multiracial" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Multiracial people by national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2008 (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:Female boxers[edit]

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: rename (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with Category:Women's boxing and other Category:Sportswomen categories. Abecedare (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2008 (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:Xian Expatriate footballers in Y intersection[edit]

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, this is being emptied as the results of the above CFD are being carried out. Kbdank71 20:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xian Expatriate footballers in Y intersection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete creating "holding pages" is not at all a conventional use for Wikipedia:Categories pages Mayumashu (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, but only if all of its sub-categories are also deleted - The categories within this "holding category" are a case of overcategorization (the potential for many thousands of categories exist under this triple-intersection approach, including categories with such little use at Category:Slovak expatriate footballers in Costa Rica which would only have one entry). There are alternative searches that can be used to accomplish the same information as these categories (please see discussion at WP:FOOTY/Talk for more detail. Jogurney (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality and country or something similar. It could be a good idea to have these grouped together, but the current name is atrocious (and ambiguous since "Xian" can be a shorthand way of writing "Christian"). I think the creation of this category borders on WP:POINT. I'm sorry, I didn't realise your intent was a mass nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not following protocol, as I don't seem to understand it. I would like to nominate all 100+ categories within this category for deletion per precedent. If I need to manually list all 100+ categories, I will do it. Unfortunately, I seem to have offended people by using this category to track them. Jogurney (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I m sure we need to repeat any discussion on the matter for the actual nomination of these pages in question. I m obviously against deletion of the pages in question but am support of your point, User:Jogurney, that all possible combinations - those with just one member - should not exist. (I d like to see there be a rule that there be at least 5 items to populate a page or no page.) And, yes, 'CatScan' can achieve much of what having these pages accomplishes, but there is still the large amount of clutter that having three links instead of one causes at the foot of bio pages. Mayumashu (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, in most cases, there are not three links for each triple-intersect since a single footballer may play in 5 countries, requiring just 6 categories, not 15. Perhaps these categories should be done away with altogether, but that's a discussion for another day. Jogurney (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until after the mass-nomination for included cats. I'm disappointed in this nomination, as it seems to be an attempt to short-circuit the discussion of whether the categories in question should be deleted. I am doubly disappointed that the user who nominated appears to have been canvassing like-minded editors to participate in this CfD, and simply depressed that the user, having been asked to stop creating new expatriate categories by members of WP:FOOTY, appears to have simply stopped doing so for football and not any other sport. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All although the nominator has done a u-turn from creating, I would tend to agree that the categories should be deleted. They are falsely using the word Expatriate, because none of the footballers are true expatriates. They go to a country to work and live for a bit, a true expatriate goes to a country to live permanently. In the footballing world people move around all the time. These expatriate categories are now just clutter. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only following the conclusion of this nomination. King of the North East 14:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend procedural close. One CfD at a time, please. Let's first get Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 23#Expatriate footballer triple-intersections out of the way. When we have a consensus there, then we can discuss this particular category. First things first. Aecis·(away) talk 16:21, 23 December 2008 (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:Entertainment cliques[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Entertainment cliques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Very POV category. It had used Category:Celebrities as a parent, but that did not appear appropriate and it was removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- obviously depends on POV of editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2008 (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:Art by subject[edit]

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Art by subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete What do these categories have in common? I am not seeing what horses, the moon, and Ancient Rome have to do with one another. I think this should be deleted and some of them go in Category:Art genres and maybe Category:Art history. Clubmarx (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Most of the ones already here are neither genres nor really fall under art history - the Ancient Rome one for example. The move should be in the other direction in most cases, and I have added a number of categories to this one. We need more categorization of art by subject, not less. Some of the sub-categories are weak, but the main problem is that several use "art" for art, literature etc, when by convention art, artists etc in categories means visual arts - they should really be renamed to "Foo in the arts". Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear lines are not a common feature of arts categorization. Really a genre should be something an artist can spend his whole career producing. For example Category:Death-related art is more a subject than a genre to my mind, but Category:Horses in art is both (George Stubbs), as are military and marine art. We have Category:Equine artists (quite large) but no Category:Death-related artists or similar. I added the death one to subjects, but it would be premature to remove it from genres while the debate is going on - and some might feel it too is both. Most "by subject" categories are a hodge-podge; that seems inevitable. I added others that are still not in genres - Category:Political works for example. Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they would be mutually exclusive, but they can't be synonymous. --Clubmarx (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Category:Political works covers a lot more than visual arts. Category:Art by subject should be a subcategory of :Category:Visual arts. I don't think the category creator put it in the correct place. :Category:Political art might be a contender for this category though so I made this change. --Clubmarx (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, most of the categories already there included literature etc. Category:Political works therefore seemed more appropriate for the category as it is now. A rename to Category:Arts by subject would fix that, but it might not be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genres are a different (existing) category. I think the name is clear enough myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the subject depicted might be too narrow. You can have a piece of artwork comment on, say, the military without representing the military. I would not want to rename the category to that, but it is at least getting somewhere. Art genres may seem to contain only themes, like Category:Fantasy art?? --Clubmarx (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to draw some "clear lines" between themes, subjects and genres? Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2008 (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:WikiProject Prison Break participants[edit]

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: moved to 2009 JAN 2 WP:UCFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Prison Break participants to Category:Prison Break Task Force participants
Nominator's rationale: per the taskforcification of the wikiproject NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:06, 23 December 2008 (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:WikiProject Prison Break[edit]

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: rename to Category:WikiProject Prison Break task force. Inclusion of "WikiProject" at least is non-negotiable for such categories. I've adopted the standard WP approach to capitalization, but if it's somewhere determined that "Task Force" should be capitalized in such categories, this should be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Prison Break to Category:Prison Break Task Force
Nominator's rationale: per the taskforcification of the wikiproject NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:WikiProject Prison Break task force. It is still part of a WikiProject and should be so named. Not sure about the caps here. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also wonder about the spelling for task force here. Maybe it should be Taskforce as it is in one place for another category. If this one is renamed to indicate that it is a WikiProject Taskforce, then we may need to renominate a few more. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close and relist at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the contents contain the article talk pages it belongs here. The fact that the participant category is also included is a different problem. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question: How should we coordinate this with the relisted one above? Should we wait for the result there and rename this one to match, or is that putting the cart before the horse? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is OK to deal with this one and then follow on with the others. This appears to be a growing problem with these task forces. We really need to clearly identity category names that associate them with the projects and not the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_23&oldid=1138390003"