Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12[edit]

Category:Programming evaluation[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Programming evaluation to Category:Evaluation strategy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct name. Matches main article. —Ruud 21:37, 12 March 2011 (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:Opposition against Islam[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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Better English. Compare also the name of Category:Opposition to religion.  --Lambiam 18:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per the nominator. Tryptobieno (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sort of redundant.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Better English. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (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:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland[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 at current name. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland to Councillors in the Republic of Ireland. Also request permission for the description of the scope of the category to read "Councillors, past and present, on the Councils of those administrative counties or Cities that form the first tier of local government in the Republic of Ireland". If this is too verbose, I'm open to more succinct alternatives as long as the effect is that it is clear to the reader that the category is not confined to the "traditional" counties of the Republic. For example, none of the modern Dublin administrative councillors categories have been permitted to enter the category by the zealous irredentist guardians. It will also preclude those articles about politicians who happen to have been born in / owned a holiday home / passed through the county on the train to Cork as opposed to those that were actually elected to a defined local government authority in the county. Lastly, the scope would preclude those that were elected to small town councils (e.g. Blackrock Urban District Council) that are not in the first tier of local government.
Nominator's rationale The main article for the category is lisrted as Local government in the Republic of Ireland which in turn states, "Local government functions in the Republic of Ireland are mostly exercised by thirty-four local authorities, termed county or city councils, which cover the entire territory of the state. So if the category follows its main articles, it should only contain people who are councilors of " thirty-four local authorities" and not people at one of two tiers below this first tier. Secondly, its parent category is Category:Local councillors in Ireland which contains categories for the two parts of the island (as usual):
Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Councillors in Northern Ireland whose scope is defined as "Local elected councillors, past and present, in Northern Ireland". So Northern Ireland follows the same naming convention. Thirdly, at a wider UK level, you have the parent category of Category:Councillors in North West England whose scope is defined as "Local elected councillors and aldermen, past and present, in North West England. An example of a sub-category from there is:
Category:Councillors in Liverpool whose scope is defined as "Councillors and aldermen, past and present, on Liverpool City Council.".
Catering for City Councils, as opposed to County Councils, is the Category:United Kingdom city councillors. This holds the following sub-categories:
Category:Councillors in Bradford
Category:Councilmen and Aldermen of the City of London
Category:Councillors in Leeds
Category:Councillors in Liverpool
Category:Councillors in Manchester
Category:Members of Belfast City Council
Category:Councillors in Merseyside
Category:Councillors in Westminster
In summary, the example of the Republic's nearest neighbours suggests that the "Councillors in Foo" convention is followed in the majority of cases and that it is restricted to those people who are councillors of county councils or city councils. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Most of the nominator's rationale is utterly irrelevant to the renaming proposal, which amounts to striking out the word "local" in "Local councillors". I oppose that, because the word "councillor" has many other uses, and retaining the prefix "local" is a terse way of clarifying the scope of the category.
    The rest of the proposal relates to restricting the scope of the category, in a way which would be highly disruptive by applying a non-obvious definition of "local councillor" to exclude significant numbers of councillors. Ireland currently has two tiers of local councillors: a) county councils and city councils, and b) town councils. In the past there were also rural district councils and urban district councils, and before that there were various other local council-like bodies such as poor law boards. It makes no sense at all to arbitrarily define town councillors and urban district councillors as somehow "not local councillors", when by any plain English definition that's what they are.
    In some cases it may be worth considering creating separate sub-categories for members of particular councils, such as county councils, but whether or not the sub-categories are created it makes no sense to exclude some councillors.
    he examples cited of English councils are based on inadequate research: if the nominator had spent a moment checking, he would have seen that for example the county-wide Category:Councillors in West Yorkshire contains all councillors in that area, both for current and former councils, and that there are sub-categories for specific councils, such as Category:Councillors in Bradford and Category:Councillors in Leeds. Since the latter two refer to specific councils, they could probably be renamed as Category:Bradford City Councillors etc, provided that members of the former local councils in those area were excluded.
    In summary, this whole nomination is based in the nominator's continued fixation on "tier 1 local authorities" (a neologism of his own invention), and his continued failure to understand that these categories are part of a wider series relating to the geographical scope of a county, not to the various local authorities past and present within that county. To clarify this, I have just added to Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No convincing argument has been advanced to remove the word local from these categories. I see even less reason that they should be restricted to County Councillors only. There are a few people who have articles who were Urban District Councillors so they have to go somewhere, and they are not enough of them to justify another sub category. Snappy (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case for removing “local” Why is it that readers of UK Council categories are presumed to know that "Councillor" means one elected to office in local government but readers of Irish Council categories do not enjoy that presumption? I’m sure you would wish to avoid the implication that Paddy is thick and needs it spelt out for him.
How likely is it that readers might associate the term with something altogether different? Wiki has it that “In Australia, The Bahamas, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and other parts of the Commonwealth, as well as in the Republic of Ireland, a councillor or councilor is an elected representative on a local government council.” – see Councillor. If there is a danger that it might be confused with a homophone Counselor, then the usual remedy is for the scope of the category to contain a disambiguation sentence. In which case, the variants of such Counselors already contain fairly explicit disambiguators in their titles (e.g. Lawyer, Privy Councillor, Minister-counsellor, Counsellors of State, Marriage Guidance Counsellor, Bereavement Counsellor, Debt Counsellor, Counselor (role variant)). So Councillor, which alone among them has the privilege of no disambiguator, should also enjoy that privilege in the category name.
It is also objected that the idiom “local councillor” enjoys common usage. To this it may be said that the Gaelic Athletic Association is universally known as “the GAA” (rhymes with baa) yet it is the former that has Wiki recognition, not the latter. So common usage should not be treated as a “sacred cow”.
User BHG has reverted many of my category scope descriptions on the grounds that they are "too verbose". Frankly, I would number verbosity among my many failings. Yet, when attempting to apply her lessons in this case by eliminating a redundant term, I am opposed by the same user. Is this not a case of "Don't do as I do, do as I say"?Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would support renaming the UK categories to "Local councillors", to remove ambiguity. Adding an explanation to the category text does not avert the risk of miscategorisation when the category name is ambiguous.
As to your verbose category introductions, I have removed those becuase the purpose of the introduction is simply to define the scope of the category as briefly and clearly as possible. Too much verbosity impedes the purpose of the category, which is simply navigation: further detail belongs in articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case for constraining the scope description It has been objected that because Category:Councillors in West Yorkshire contains two sub-categories, that the scope should not be constained. I don’t think that that argument stacks up. Firstly, West Yorkshire came into existence as a metropolitan county in 1974 and so would have had a Council in its own right (unlike County Tipperary - see below). West Yorkshire County Council was abolished in 1986 and was split into a number of Unitary authorities. The relevant part of the article states: “Typically unitary authorities cover towns or cities which are large enough to function independently of county or other regional administration. Sometimes they consist of national sub-divisions which are distinguished from others in the same country by having no lower level of administration.” In other words, it is effectively part of the first tier of local government. Town councils – the second tier of local governement – are, by contrast, are not independent of their county council for many of the services that are provided within the town. User BHG finds the idiom “tier 1” objectionable; I have no difficulty in somebody substiituting a different term that conveys the same meaning. Getting back to West Yorkshire, it is clear that the divisions of the former county after 1986 were in themselves of the first rank of local government so a category scope that confined inclusion to such “tier 1” (for want of a synonym) entities would have had no effect on Category:Councillors in Bradford or Category:Councillors in Leeds – they would have made the cut.
Regarding the “non-obvious definition of "local councillor”, I would contend that the purpose of a scope description is to overcome the very defect complained of – to make the non-obvious explicit and, well, obvious.
It is objected that “town councillors and urban district councillors” would be unfairly excluded by such a constriction. I think that it is entirely fair and in keeping with common expectations. In any case, the numerous categories of “Politics of County Foo” and “People of County Foo” would admirably cater for these people. One is in danger of getting overly excited about possibilities that are, in actuality, rare events. For example, of the five entities listed in Category:Local councillors in County Dublin, only 1 entry was found who was not in any of the 5 entities – William Field (Irish politician). He is present in the wrapper category because of his membership of a UDC (now abolished). The fact that his skills as a butcher is listed before his skills as a politician makes me believe that Mr. Field and his ilk would probably fail a test for notability. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, you're making this appear much more complicated than it is.
In both the UK and Ireland we have the same structure: geographical categories for local councillors, which include all local councillors in that geographical area, whatever type of council they served on. We may or may not create sub-categories for members of specific councils, but sub-categorisation is a separate issue. Your fixation on the authority or ranking of the councils is irrelevant, because what we are doing here is categorising councillors rather than councils.
You say that it is "entirely fair and in keeping with common expectations" to exclude “town councillors and urban district councillors. Why? What relaible sources do you have to say that a town councillor or a rural district councillor is not a local councillor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I must defend myself against a position that I never actually adopted. For the record, I've never said that a UDC or other town councillor is not a local councillor. My point is that they are not notable and that a reasonable person would not expect to find them present in the category. A reasonable person, on going into a category for an administrative county such as Fingal, would expect to find the councillors for Fingal County Council and not for Balbriggan town council. A "See other" directionto say, "Politics of County Foo" would satisfy any cravings in that department. So the argument pivots on notability (or lack of it in the case of town councils). While the legislation permits towns with a population in excess of circa 7000 to petition for a council, even this very low figure must be contrasted with the de facto populations of towns with extant councils where the population might not exceed 3500. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now Laurel Lodged is basing their arguments on what a "reasonable person" expects. Where is the definition of "reasonable person" that we all agreed on. I seem to have missed that debate. William Field was also an MP, and other UDC/Town councillors may be notable in other areas too. Surely if a "reasonable person" was looking for a councillor, but didn't know what specific body (County/City/Town) the councillor was a member of, just that they were a councillor for an area, they would go, for example, to Local councillors for County Dublin, and find the person there. Snappy (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @ Laurel Lodged: Yet again, more irrelevant detail :(
Your point now seems to be some combination of: a) some local councillors are too local to be included in a category of local councillors; and b) that Category:Local councillors in Fingal should not include all the articles we have on local councillors in Fingal. Both are bizarre.
The situation on notability is quite simple: per WP:POLITICIAN, no councillors are automatically notable. We only have articles on local councillors if they meet WP:GNG, which most of them do not, including most county councillors. Those who do meet WP:GNG may do so because of their political activities, or for other reasons (such as Michael O'Brien).
We are only ever likely to have articles on a very small proportion of local councillors, at whatever level they served. Where we do have articles on local councillors, they should all be categorised as local councillors. Why on earth do you think that a reader would expect that a local councillor on whom we have an article would not be categorised as a local councillor in the most specific geographic category? If someone has heard of a councillor in Tipperary who was notable for his participation in a TV show, the logical place to find them is in a category of local councillors in Tipperary ... but you want to hide Michael O'Brien away from that category on the grounds that he was only a town councillor. Bizarre.
This whole thing seems to hinge on your long-standing difficulty in understanding the difference between the geographic format "local councillors in Foo" and the council-specific format "councillors of Foo Council". Nobody else seems to find the distinction problematic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 16 March 2011 (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:Local councillors in County Tipperary[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 at current name. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Local councillors in County Tipperary.
Nominator's rationale The category has no main article. Per the rationale of the nomination immediately above, the scope of the category either is or ought to be "Councillors, past and present, on Tipperary Council Council". The problem is that no such County Council exists and never has existed. So the capacity of this category is precisely zero. By definition, it has no scope to grow. It should be deleted. At present, it contains two sub-categories: Category:Local councillors in North Tipperary and Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary. I have no issues with either of these categories: they point to their respective County Councils of North Tipperary County Council and South Tipperary County Council respectively. This division of the administrative counties of Tipperary (North Riding) and Tipperary (South Riding) dates back to the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. By this Act, all county councils in Ireland were created. Prior to this date, the tradiotional counties were just judicial counties: they did not have formal local government functions, which were instead carried out by Grand Juries - see here. Since the geographical entity known as "County Tipperary" or "the county of Tipperary" was never an administrative county, it can never have had county councillors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a series of similar categories for local councillors in Ireland, by county. County Tipperary is one of the 26 traditional counties of Ireland, and remains one of the 26 counties routinely used for geographical purposes. As can be seen from Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland, those 26 traditional counties form the basis of geographical categorisation in Ireland, and the Tipperary categories are one of that series.
    The nominator misunderstands the scope of the category: it is a geographical category "Local councillors in County Tipperary", not (as he seems to think) "Members of Tipperary County Council". It will inevitably be a container category, because Tipperary has always had two county councils (North Tipperary County Council and South Tipperary County Council), so we have sub-categories for councillors in those areas ... but it also important to note that the sub-categories do not contain only county councillors. There are currently 7 town councils in County Tipperary, and the members of those councils are also local councillors; similarly the members of the former rural district councils in County Tipperary were also local councillors.
    Note that a similar situation exists with County Dublin, a traditional county which is now divided into four areas for administrative purposes; Category:Local councillors in County Dublin is another container category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Category can also be used for Town/Urban District Councillors. It is not exclusively for County councillors. Snappy (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2011 (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:Local councillors in County Foo[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 all at current name. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name all as indicated below.
Category:Local councillors in County Carlow to Councillors in County Carlow.
Category:Local councillors in County Cavan to Councillors in County Cavan.
Category:Local councillors in County Clare to Councillors in County Clare.
Category:Local councillors in County Cork to Councillors in County Cork.
Category:Local councillors in County Donegal to Councillors in County Donegal.
Category:Local councillors in County Dublin to Councillors in County Dublin.
Category:Local councillors in County Galway to Councillors in County Galway.
Category:Local councillors in County Kerry to Councillors in County Kerry.
Category:Local councillors in County Kildare to Councillors in County Kildare.
Category:Local councillors in County Kilkenny to Councillors in County Kilkenny.
Category:Local councillors in County Laois to Councillors in County Laois.
Category:Local councillors in County Leitrim to Councillors in County Leitrim.
Category:Local councillors in County Limerick to Councillors in County Limerick.
Category:Local councillors in County Longford to Councillors in County Longford.
Category:Local councillors in County Louth to Councillors in County Louth.
Category:Local councillors in County Mayo to Councillors in County Mayo.
Category:Local councillors in County Meath to Councillors in County Meath.
Category:Local councillors in County Monaghan to Councillors in County Monaghan.
Category:Local councillors in County Offaly to Councillors in County Offaly.
Category:Local councillors in County Roscommon to Councillors in County Roscommon.
Category:Local councillors in County Sligo to Councillors in County Sligo.
Category:Local councillors in County Waterford to Councillors in County Waterford.
Category:Local councillors in County Westmeath to Councillors in County Westmeath.
Category:Local councillors in County Wexford to Councillors in County Wexford.
Category:Local councillors in County Wicklow to Councillors in County Wicklow.
Not forgetting the councillors of the new Dublin Region administrations:
Category:Local councillors in Dublin (city) to Councillors in Dublin (city).
Category:Local councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown to Councillors inDun Laoghaire-Rathdown).
Category:Local councillors in Fingal to Councillors in Fingal.
Category:Local councillors in South Dublin (county) to Councillors in South Dublin (county).
It's been a Long Way to Tipperary, but we're nearly finished.
Category:Local councillors in North Tipperary to Councillors in North Tipperary.
Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary to Councillors in South Tipperary.
Nominaator's rationale Per rationale above. Also to avoid a "League of Gentlemen" comedy possibility. Since all county councillors are local and none are in central government, the disambiguator "local" is both quaint and unnecessary. Thank you for your patience. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. The word councillor can be applied to people who are members of many different types of body, such as the Council of State (Ireland), the Bar Council of Ireland, or the National Women's Council. Retaining the "local" prefix is a succinct means of clarify the purpose of the categories as being "local government councillors", and avoiding errors in categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - Having only Councillor is too vague, Local councillor specifies they are members of the Town/County council. The phrase "local councillors" is widely used. Snappy (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2011 (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:Members of the Storting[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 both. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Storting to Category:Members of the Parliament of Norway
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency per the top article name (Parliament of Norway) and the recent renaming of Category:Storting to Category:Parliament of Norway, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 4#Matching national legislature names Arsenikk (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2011 (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:Russian expatriate footballers in Belgium[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 equivalent "Expatriate footballers in (X)" categories. The triple-intersection categories could indeed proliferate to many thousands of very small categories. The players seem to all have "(X) expatriate footballers" categories, but I'm less confident they are all in the "Expatriate footballers in (X)" categories they belong in. Thus, the merge instead of delete. If any data is lost, it can be HOTCATted in afterward from the target categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Russian expatriate footballers in Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated
Support per nom. The categories are more akin to a bad joke. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete. Support an upmerge to the parents of each one, eg Category:Ukrainian expatriate footballers in England has to be upmerged to all of Category:Expatriate footballers in England, Category:Ukrainian expatriates in England, Category:Ukrainian expatriate footballers. Occuli (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These cats make 2 categories into 1. For example: if Category:Russian expatriate footballers in Belgium would not be in article, then there should be Category:Russian expatriates in Belgium and Category:Expatriate footballers in Belgium. Anyway, this is the point of categorization. Don't be too eager with deleting :) Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These cats make 2 categories into 1 and consist footballers by country and nationality. Bogic (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's lots of them more. See for example Category:Russian expatriate footballers and Category:Ukrainian expatriate footballers. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The only categories of this kind should be the existing ones at Category:Expatriate association football players. Some editors at Footy even wanted to delete these ones, not to mention the ones we are discussing here. The creation of these overcategorization is making many editors wanting to delete them all. I support the deletion of all categories of this kind except the ones found in Category:Expatriate association football players. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generally, an editor is more likely to be interested on Russian football exports, or Belgian football imports, than in Russian football imports to Belgium. For someone who happens to have that very specific interest, Wikipedia:CatScan is available. As Jmorrison has explained above, these cross-categorisations are too narrow. If every country had one of these categories for every other country, there would potentially be 200*200=40,000 categories. By comparison, there are fewer than 130,000 football articles, tens of thousands of which aren't biographies, and tens of thousands more of which are biographies, but on players who only played in their home country. —WFC— 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with you WFC on this. However, I support keeping the Category:Expatriate association football players because, possibly not you, but many people are interested in foreign players playing in several countries. Its just that having them further categorised in nations for each country is just too much... P.S.: Your exemple (Belgium/Russia) was exactly good for my point, and demonstrates how all nations should have equal treatment, and how can the situation change depending on time. Didn´t you noteced that Russian imports have been way more interesting than Belgium ones in last couple of years? :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - by deleting these categories, you blow people's long-hour work and create lots of work to yourself. If you delete, you have to make 1 cat to 2. If there is Category:Russian expatriate footballers in France, then afterwards it would have to be Category:Russian expatriates in France and Category:Expatriate footballers in France. It would take days and it's pointless. And saying that people are not interested in these cats is definitely wrong. It's the same that "no categories are needed". Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I understand you Pelmeen10, and I am trying to demonstrate a long time now how wp visitors and editors do care about (very much, btw) foreign players in various countries. If you notece, in my PS comment to WFC, I also support the descentralization of football articles and how the growing importance of football in several parts of the world has still not been acknolledged by many anglo-saxon editors here. The exemple of Belgium/Russia was quite remarcable. However, Pelmeen10, you and those editors should have noteced that those categories have been disputed for quite some time now, and in many cases they have been deleted. If you didn´t noteced that, I must say that you didn´t followed the Project discussions to which those articles belong to. As WFC pointed out, if we allow this categories to go on, and if we give equal treatment to all nations (as it should be), we´ll end up having 40,000 new categories. I don´t want that. I prefer to have the simplier categories from the link I gave (simple, expatriate footballers in X), this way having in one place the entire list of foreign footballers that play/played in Vietnam, as exemple, instead of having them further categorised by countries, in many cases having few articles only. See my point? FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the point of categorization and that's where we are heading (and should also). Where did you take the number of 40,000? That should not be the correct number. I see no mistreatment by nationalities. They can be created at any time and need. Just there's not many users who want to take it up. We can use 2cats until somebody makes this kind of cat and then we would have 1 cat lesser. Can be said that point of categorization is to make 2cats into 1cat, and this is it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 200 nations x 200 countries? That would be impossible (here is 145 (-own country=144) and here is 144 (-own country=143), the maximum number is anyway impossible to reach (smaller nations have expatriates in 5-6 countries), so see my compromise. You can't say that making new categories is not worth it. How many categories are in Wikipedia? Quite alot, but deleting them just because of the numbers would be crazy. Categories are for easier navigation, and if they make 2 cats into 1, then it's definitely necessary. Again, that is the point of categorization. You can all read Wikipedia:Categorization. Compromise: We can make a rule for these kind of cats. Lets say atleast 5 or 10 articles in a cat. That would be fair and equal for each nation and country. (I agree that it would be quite pointless to have 1 or 2 articles in a cat but still...). So the compromise 1)would keep away many unnecessary categories and 2)would keep 1 cat lesser and 3)makes navigation easier like all other categories. Please think about it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are 208 FIFA members. The maximum is *more* than 40,000. A compromise along the lines you are suggesting might be worthwhile in exceptional circumstances, but "exceptional" would refer to groups of something closer to 500 and 1000 articles, than 5 and 10. —WFC— 00:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Please do. We've discussed several times before that these triple-intersections are unnecessary. The proliferation of these confusing, contentious and time-wasting categories is frustrating at best. Jogurney (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unnecessary category intersections. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to delete. The main argument in favour of these appears to be that they reduce the number of categories that will be on any given article. I don't think that is a super great argument, as it completely overlooks the issue of whether these particular triple intersections are notable, let alone defining, for a footballer. I think it's probably defining for a footballer that he is an "expatriate footballer" of a particular nationality. It's probably also defining that he is an expatriate footballer that played in a given country. But that he is an expatriate footballer of a particular nationality that also played in a particular country?: I think in most cases, this final intersection would not be defining. Overall, it looks like overcategorization. (If a person is a FOOian expatriate footballer in GOO, I think they could be placed in categories for "FOOian expatriate footballers" and "expatriate footballers in GOO", but I'm not convinced that they necessarily need to be in "FOOian expatriates in GOO" either.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per nom, these are intersections taken too far. GiantSnowman 13:44, 16 March 2011 (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:People from Galway[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Galway to Category:People from Galway (city)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove the ambiguity in the term "Galway", which may refer to either the city of Galway or to County Galway. The city is the primary usage of the term, but category names should not be ambiguous per numerous precedents: e.g. Category:People from Dublin (city), Category:People from Limerick (city), Category:People from Waterford (city), Category:People from Liège (city). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I used the precedent of Liège many months back in the context of a very similar propoasl for Dublin city. It was not accepted. I predicted that it would come back to this. Ho hum. You can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with your previous proposal was that you wanted to change the name Dublin to "Dublin city", rather than adding a disambiguator: "Dublin (city)". This was explained to you at the time, and on several occasions since, and it's sad that you still refuse to understand the distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the originator of the category, I fully support this logical change for increased clarity. Ardfern (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The parent category has been renamed to Category:Galway (city) in the close of this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2011 (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:2008 Tunis Open[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:2008 Tunis Open to parent categories.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL. The category will never contain more then three articles. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 06:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: While the 2008 cat does have 3 articles, it in turn leaves the parent category empty. Delete & upmerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2011 (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:2008 XL Bermuda Open[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:2008 XL Bermuda Open to parent categories.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL. The category will never contain more then three articles. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 06:40, 12 March 2011 (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:2008 Price LeBlanc Lexus Pro Tennis Classic[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:2008 Price LeBlanc Lexus Pro Tennis Classic to parent categories.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL. The category will never contain more then three articles. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 06:40, 12 March 2011 (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:Botswana LGBT-related television programmes[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. I have discounted Lafe Smith's nomination, and concluded that this would have passed if he had not voiced an opinion. Which, for Pete's sake, he should stop doing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Botswana LGBT-related television programmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another single-item permanently small category. Was previously deleted under Category:Botswana LGBT-related television programs and recreated by the same editor with this altered spelling. Lafe Smith (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see the point of having a one item category. Besides that, it was apparently previously deleted under a different title. Dismas|(talk) 06:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No conceptual problem with category, but until there are 5 or so articles, no reason for a separate category. Indeed there only article in the cat is already in Category:British LGBT-related television programmes. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet. Is this nomination still valid? OCNative (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (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:Botswana LGBT-related films[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 would have passed without Lafe Smith's comment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Botswana LGBT-related films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has exactly one entry which doesn't even belong. The entry is about a TV series that at one point someone thought about making into a film. That was last year and there is no film on the horizon. Dismas|(talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nominator notes, the single entry is not correctly categorized here. Even if it were this would remain a single-item small category for the foreseeable future. Lafe Smith (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lafe Smith has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet. OCNative (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When looking at the last nomination, I removed The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency (TV series) since it wasn't obviously not a film; put it back so I didn't empty out cat.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2011 (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/2011_March_12&oldid=1084319741"