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 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
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: 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
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
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 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
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 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
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: 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
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: 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
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 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 ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Argentine footballers and ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›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
Delete. There's little I can add to the comprehensive nom rationale except to point out that "expatriate" for a player on limited contract is inaccurate, and that's how players have been categorised so far.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk00:21, 24 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
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 NorthEast20:46, 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
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.
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
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
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 / 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 me10:48, 31 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:Multiracial people by national origin
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 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
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 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
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.
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
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) -
talk09:36, 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
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
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 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
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.
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
Rename -- The category appears to be mainly about the subject depicted in paintings, drawings etc. I would suggest
Category:Art by subject depicted. This is not quite the same thing as genre. It may be necessary to remove a few of the articles as not quite fitting the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:12, 24 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
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
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 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
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
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
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.
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 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
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: 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
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
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 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
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 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
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: 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
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: 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
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 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 ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Argentine footballers and ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›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
Delete. There's little I can add to the comprehensive nom rationale except to point out that "expatriate" for a player on limited contract is inaccurate, and that's how players have been categorised so far.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk00:21, 24 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
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 NorthEast20:46, 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
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.
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
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
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 / 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 me10:48, 31 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:Multiracial people by national origin
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 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
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 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
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.
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
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) -
talk09:36, 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
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
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 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
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.
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
Rename -- The category appears to be mainly about the subject depicted in paintings, drawings etc. I would suggest
Category:Art by subject depicted. This is not quite the same thing as genre. It may be necessary to remove a few of the articles as not quite fitting the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:12, 24 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
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
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 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
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
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
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.