Category:Soccer clubs in Shreveport, Louisiana[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.
Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 article) unlikely to grow. Dual merge to Sports teams in Shreveport, Louisiana as well. TM 21:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge No need for the granularity by city. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 11 September 2017 (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:Ice hockey teams in Shreveport, Louisiana[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.
Dual Upmerge With no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2017 (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:Wrestling venues in the United States by city[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.
Keep Wow. There are enough venues in both Category:Wrestling venues in New Orleans and Category:Professional wrestling venues in New Orleans to keep them. There are also other cities in the U.S. with these categories that could fit under Category:Wrestling venues in the United States by city. I added cities to have five categories under Wrestling venues by city. This doesn't include many major U.S. cities, which could be easily be added. Took about an hour to do rather than deleting. Please lets not level/destroy categories when they have enough content under them or content is available and can be easily added. Spatms (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the usual guideline of "unlikely to grow" is a relevant one in many of the categories you've posted today, Justin. It's easy to expand the categories, which is surely more sensible than deleting them when they fit into wider schemes such as "sports by state" or "sports by city". Grutness...wha? 00:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep/Support in Principle Categorizing multipurpose arenas that host home shows, wrestling shows, bridal shows, medical conventions and rock concerts by each booking is non-defining, and that's exactly what's going on in Category:Wrestling venues in Los Angeles, for instance. But you need to start at the bottom and work up: as long as those problematic child categories exist, this parent makes sense navigation wise. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the arenas are multi-purpose and cross-listed elsewhere. Simply hosting a wrestling match does not mean the facility is defined by that action. Certain venues in certain cities were/are defined by hosting wrestling events but these are not.--TM 17:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or rename), unless the venues are used only for wrestling. I recall a similar case some years ago for snooker venues in UK. Certain competitions were held in the same venue for a week or fortnight each year, but as a theatre or for other purposes form the other 50 weeks. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2017 (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:Curling in the United States by state[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 13 states have curling pages. That shows that curling is in more states than just Minnesota and Wisconsin and has an impact in multiple state across the U.S. This needs to be a category for organizational purposes. Spatms (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't need the entire 50 states to have categories for a scheme to be useful. Currently more than a quarter of them have categories, and there's a decent chance that that may grow. The same is true for most of this series of discussions - if there are more than two or three states grouped together in this way, I see no problem with them remaining. They fit well within the current scheme of Category:Sports in the United States by sport and state. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prune States with < 5 Articles Several of these look fine and the parent category is needed but created a tree consistently with underpopulated categories isn't helpful. (I'm fine completely the set if 48 states have 5+ articles and you have a small one for Nebraska and Hawaii.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You also planning to consider deleting the sailing and surfing categories, given that (since a lot of states have no coastline), they'll never reach 50 states? As long as there are at least a handful of states with categories, the scheme is useful. Grutness...wha? 03:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm looking for 5 articles that are really about sailing or surfing in the large majority of state articles before we automatically start creating underpopulated ones to complete the set. I'm fine with 5 or 10 state level sports articles that are well populated which is why I don't favor deleting all of these categories. What concerns me here is that we have 5 well populated categories and that's justifying 14 underpopulated ones. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no need to delete those state categories with say two or three articles Hugo999 (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hugo999: How do you feel about the 6 subcategories that currently have 1 article? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2017 (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:Squash in the United States by state[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scheme is already built - it's called Category:Sports in the United States by sport and state. Three states is thin, but can you guarantee that this category will not grow? You don't need the entire 50 states to have categories for a scheme to be useful. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Grutness. Thin, but worthy of keeping. Can be expanded and squash is played in all states. Wikipedia has enough content to justify "by state" for all or almost all sports categories. Early on in Wikipedia history I could see not categorizing by state, but enough content now exists. Spatms (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All There are four (4) articles for the United States. Breaking this into subcategories makes readers go through more categories than is needed and hinders navigation. No objection to reviewing if any any state gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Four? There are sixty-six. And most of the categories have five articles or more. Grutness...wha? 02:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prune those Under 5 Articles The articles you added all are Squash related for that state so I'm happy to re-evaluate the categories. As I write this, 6 of 10 have less than 5 articles but the ones that are populated should be kept. Thanks for your work here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eight of ten, unless you're counting a subcategory as an article. Grutness...wha? 10:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: Oops, I mistakenly took some subcategories as articles in my last comment; sorry about that mistake.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Easy mistake to make :) Grutness...wha? 07:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no need to delete those state categories with say two or three articles Hugo999 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2017 (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:Cross country running in the United States by state[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to Category:Cross country running in the United States as appropriate. There is no scheme for this--just two courses in Illinois. If someone can make the structure of a whole scheme, no prejudice to re-creation but it's just not necessary or helpful for navigation at the moment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also enough content under Cross Country running per state to justify keeping this category. Cross country takes places in all 50 states. Do not delete as content is available now and should be added. Spatms (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've made a start on expanding the by-state categorisation of cross country, and it's clear there's enough scope for this category to be useful. The same is almost certainly true of all the other by-state sports categories nominated. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having ansingle article in multiple states isn't a good basis for creating dozens of categories. I'm not seeing the navigational benefit when the whole tree is anemic. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "whole tree" has only just been started as an indication of what is possible - there are more articles that can be categorised. And not one of those articles is in multiple state categories. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified my comment that I'm concerned when the tree consists mostly of 1 article categories, not that a single category is in multiple states. (My wording was definitely unclear.) I have nothing against this sport, but this level of subcategorization that breaks up articles instead of grouping them seems to me would hinder reader navigation for right now. As the article count for Cross Country or other sports grow, this is worth revisiting. Thanks for considering my viewpoint.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd tend to agree. One-article categories are overkill, so it's fine to delete them - but with no prejudice against them being re-created if and when there are more articles. But there is definite growth potential in all these categories. Grutness...wha? 10:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of recreating any of the categories on this page if and when the article count grows.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I'm open to the possibility of further populating these categories, however they are meanwhile half a year old, so there has been plenty of opportunity to add more content already - if more content exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2017 (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:Cricket in the United States by state[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge all to Category:Cricket in the United States also, upmerge some content to appropriate by state parent categories (e.g. Category:Sports in California): there is too little content on cricket in the United States to justify splitting by state--all of these are one-page categories (Florida has two). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7 states have pages related to cricket after a nonexhaustive search. New York, Indiana, Texas, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, California. Shows there is enough content in the United States to justify splitting by state. This needs to be a category for organizational purposes. Spatms (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all state categories per Spatms. May be worth upmerging the teams in LA category t the teams in California category, but that would require a separate nomination. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All 7 categories for 10 articles. Good grief. No conceptual problem with these categories but, in practice, this is just breaking up a small group of articles into too many subcategories and hindering navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick search of US sports categories, and it's now expanded to 12 categories and 55 articles. It could probably expand further with a bit more search. I don't see this as hindering navigation, but rather helping it. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minute Maid Park is the home field of the Houston Astros baseball team. For just one day in 2015, they hosted a cricket match so now that stadium article is in two (2) cricket categories? That feels like WP:PERFCAT to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - that one probably is overkill. WP:OCVENUE's probably a better criticism though. Grutness...wha? 07:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Full upmerge -- I cannot believe that enough cricket is played in US to merit a "by state" split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might be surprised, @Peterkingiron:. There are nearly 40,000 registered players in the US, and there are cricket clubs registered in over 40 US states. The country is currently rated as the 24th best team in the world (out of over 100 that play the sport) - by way of comparison, that's higher than the US's ranking in soccer. The US hosted the first ever cricket international, and completed an international series against Canada just last week. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the amount of players but the amount of articles should be decisive. As long as we don't have several hundreds of articles about cricket in the US it doesn't make sense to split by state (e.g. 250 articles in total divided by 50 states is 5 articles per state on average). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
at a quick count up of the Category:Cricket in the United States category, we have more than 250 articles on American cricket, and there is quite a bit of state-specific undercategorising. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised. The question is however whether enough of the clubs and players are notable to merit a split. I suspect not. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2017 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Single-article category; the main article is already appropriately categorized in the various parent categories. (Category creator not notified: inactive) -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Upmerge Even if one or two gatherings were notable, those could be put in a more generic category up the tree. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 10 September 2017 (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.
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:speedy delete (C1: empty category). This was a single-user category, and the sole user (also category creator) removed the category from their user page in May 2017. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty Rathfelder (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please indicate why you think it's necessary to discuss it here? (i.e. for what reason did you decide not to tag it as an empty category?) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2017 (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.
Up to the year 1000 in Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Maya civilization, Mexico, Norway, the Papal states, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland, the Republic of Venice, Vietnam[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:merge/delete as nominated, including the full list on the talk page. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an example, the full list of categories to be merged/deleted are on the talk page.
Nominator's rationale:merge to century level in each of the respective countries, per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article per category. This is a follow-up on this earlier nomination which dealt with the four better populated countries (China, England, France, Japan). This new nomination now concludes with the 'smaller' countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle -- per precedent. I have not checked the detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle -- per Peterkingiron Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle the extremely rare larger cat can always be kept or recreated -- Agathoclea (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to merge to century level; would probably support merger on decade level.GreyShark (dibra) 05:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for those countries which still exist; extinct countries can be merged to decade. Tim! (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It rather misses the point of the nomination to say, "those countries which still exist"; nobody denies that they currently exist, rather the question is if they existed at that remote time period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Per Nom I clicked through each of the cats and they all have one item. I'm fine with creating a few small subcategories to complete a set but only if the whole tree isn't anemic. I don't share the standards above with treating current countries or decades differently, for me it's all about the article count. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2017 (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:210s disestablishments by continent[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.
Nominator's rationale: empty Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2017 (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:Converts from Islam to agnosticism or atheism[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.
Nominator's rationale: Same reasons as [1]DVdm (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Grabado (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no formal process of "converting" to agnosticism or atheism (as they are not organized religions) making this category pretty irrelevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2017 (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.
Catholic universities and colleges by location[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. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (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:Senegalese expatriate footballers in Germany[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. All articles already in parent categories. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to appropriate parents. No need for intersection of nationality, immigration status, job, sport, and location. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous potential for explosion of categories that would have to follow the career path of every footballer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2017 (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:Republic of Ireland expatriate association footballers in Scotland[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:merge to parent categories. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to parents. No need for an intersection of nationality, location, immigration status, job, and sport. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous potential for explosion of categories that would have to follow the career path of every footballer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2017 (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:American expatriate soccer players in Finland[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:merge to parent categories. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to parents. Unnecessary intersection of nationality, immigration status, job, sport, and location. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous potential for explosion of categories that would have to follow the career path of every footballer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2017 (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:Republic of Ireland expatriate association footballers in England[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:merge to parent categories. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to parent cats. Unnecessary intersection of job, sport, location, immigration status, and nationality. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous potential for explosion of categories that would have to follow the career path of every footballer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2017 (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:American expatriate women's soccer players in Germany[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:merge to parent categories. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to both parents. Unnecessary intersection of sex, sport, immigration status, location, and nationality. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as non-diffusing subcategory. I added a related template to the category page. Hmlarson (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain a bit more why you want to make this change? Hmlarson (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: Because--as pointed out elsewhere--this is a wildly impossible amount of categories to maintain which will have only the narrowest niche members and is a quintuple intersection. Do you know of any other categories with that many intersecting properties? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it that way. The majority of my work is on articles related to women's soccer / football. This structure has been in place for awhile. I think the category is relevant to this topic... as noted below: If someone wants learn which American women soccer players played in Germany, this category serves that purpose. It's a non-diffusing category per WP:DUPCAT. Joeykai works quite a bit in this realm - perhaps they'd be willing to provide additional input. Hmlarson (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: You don't see it as a category intersection? But it clearly is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf - Can you provide a link to the guideline you are following? Hmlarson (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf - If I want to learn which American women soccer players played in Germany, this category serves that purpose. It's a non-diffusing category per WP:DUPCAT. Hmlarson (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous potential for explosion of categories that would have to follow the career path of every footballer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - per nom. Too trivial and over specific. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2017 (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:Expatriate association football players in the Americas[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. ℯxplicit 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not really necessary to break apart by continental landmass, nor is there a similar scheme for Eurasia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enormous potential for explosion of categories that would have to follow the career path of every footballer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2017 (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.
