Trichome

thcscience_admin
< April 20 April 22 >

April 21[edit]

Category:Azerbaijani Russians[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 (will list on the manual page). MER-C 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Other Azerbaijani Fooians categories may be nominated as well. Place Clichy (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual merge, by random sampling I encountered an Azerbaijani person in the Russian Empire and an Azerbaijani person in the Soviet Union. They do not belong in the descent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual merge the category probably also has Category:Azerbaijani nationals of Russian descent, which is why someone long ago converted all be Booian Fooian categories to Booiand of Fooian descent, or vice versa. INFO: the population disruptions (via gulags) of the Stalin era resulted in a lot of Soviet citizens being displaced and located away from their ethnic area of USSR. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There still are some Booian Fooian categories. Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2019 (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:Rowers from New York City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is consensus per multiple CFD here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4], and here[5] that we don't subcategorize United States sportspeople by the type of sport they perform. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's peculiar that the United States should use a system that's different from the rest of the world, but I suppose that's true of so many things outside Wikipedia as well. I thought it was perfectly logical to have these categories, but if not that's fine. Grutness...wha? 15:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it, by the way, that Washington DC has some sort of dispensation (presumably because it's not in a state), as it has several categories for individual sporting codes. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The answer is obvious. Washington D.C. is a district and not inside any state. Those subcategories would normally be 'Baseball players from state'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - if consensus is to delete, you'll want to get rid of Category:Rowers by city or town in the United States as well. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once a category is empty, it can be nominated for speedy deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous CfDs. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:52, 22 April 2019 (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:Al Ansar SC[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. MER-C 20:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article's name has been changed to Al Ansar FC, as this is the official name the AFC gives to the club (as can be seen here, in both the text below and the (albeit blurry) image, and here. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CFDS C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 08:37, 23 April 2019 (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:Buildings and structures in Baucau[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 14#Category:Buildings and structures in Baucau

Category:Buildings and structures in Bafatá[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 14#Category:Buildings and structures in Bafatá

Category:War of 1812 forts in Alabama[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category and the parent Category:War of 1812 forts does not have any other subcategories by state. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unlikely to ever be expanded into a category with multiple articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2019 (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:Power Linux distributions[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. MER-C 09:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the architecture the Linux distributions supports is called the Power ISA, not Power. 99Electrons (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I can find no reference where these Linux versions are referred to by this name. They are all either called Linux on Power, or Power Linux. I don't see the "ISA" term used at all. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't claimed that these Linux distributions have "Power ISA" in their name. This category is for Linux distributions that run on computers that implement the Power ISA. It contains, as it did when it was nominated: Debian, Fedora (operating system), and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. None of these distributions have Power in their name. And what has "Linux on Power" or "Power Linux" got to do with this discussion? These are not the names of any Linux distribution (AFAIK); they are IBM phrases/terms that describe Linux running on Power-related things, and the former is also just a partial match for "Linux on Power Systems", which means what it says: Linux running on IBM Power Systems. 99Electrons (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand you correctly, you are saying that given that the Power architecture is now open, any implementing vendor could run Linux for the Power architecture on their hardware, and therefore, the name should change to reflect that neutrality? Are there any real world examples of this? If not, I'm still opposed. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've completely misunderstood me. I'm saying Category:Power Linux distributions was created for Linux distributions that support the Power ISA, but it doesn't give the name of the architecture correctly—it mistakenly shortens it to Power. That's wrong, there's no such architecture called Power. 99Electrons (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a discussion about the use of "Power Architecture" on Wikipedia that's relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (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:Power operating systems[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. MER-C 09:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the architecture the OSes in this category support is called the Power ISA, not Power. 99Electrons (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree no problem! that's right! Editor-1 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See also my vote on a similar rename, just above this one. I have found no reference to the operating system that uses the ISA term. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the key reason, I'm on the "oppose" side of things. If common usage doesn't use the ISA term, who does it benefit if the category name is changed? It seems like this would be a very pedantic way to handle this topic, which is not going to be followed by the majority of readers. It may be imprecise as it stands, but IMHO, changing things to be more precise, will make things less usable. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state that the common name for "Power ISA" is "Power", I stated the reason why a person wouldn't find many mentions of "Power ISA" among Linux distributions. This reason is because for some architectures, the convention amongst free software, which Linux distributions are subject to, is to refer the port name instead of that of the architecture. This can be due to a number of reasons: for brevity, or because the same architecture is used by multiple incompatible platforms, necessitating a separate port to each, thus rendering the architecture irrelevant. Another reason is because of history: the architecture was called something else in the past, and instead of introducing a new port name to reflect the new architecture name, the existing port name is reused with some qualifier. As a final example, the port may require additional commonalities other than architecture: endianess, ABI, etc.
Free software or Linux distributions doesn't refer to the Power ISA frequently for some of the reasons outlined previously. The Power ISA is an evolution of the PowerPC architecture. Linux was ported to PowerPC first, so all ports to the PowerPC and subsequent architectures are called "ppc". Power ISA is also used in either big or little endian mode, so ports must choose one. Finally, Power ISA software uses an ABI specified by the OpenPOWER foundation that's different from the ones used by PowerPC.
These reasons have caused all the four Linux distributions in Category:Power Linux distributions to refer the architecture by some name other than that of the architecture:
  • Debian has a ppc64el port, which targets Power ISA 2.07 and 3.0 in the little endian mode using the 64-bit OpenPOWER ELFv2 ABI.
  • Fedora also has a ppc64el port, which supports IBM Power Systems and industry standard OpenPOWER computers (which use IBM POWER7/8/9 processors, all of which are Power ISA processors).
  • Red Hat refers to "architectures", but consistently refuses to refer to any architecture by name, using other names instead, and for the Power ISA, it names the specific processors supported and the endianess supported.
  • SUSE refers to the POWER processor series, and mentions that it's actually a ppc64el port.
Can we put the arguments pertaining to usage to bed now? There never was such an argument, because every argument for usage that has been put forward was based in an incorrect understanding of the situation, and has added nothing to the consensus process other than confusion.
Finally, for a category that's part of the Category:Linux distributions by processor architecture hierarchy, the only acceptable name for an architecture is the name of the architecture, not a partial match that's never been shown to be in use, let alone in common use. A user of this hierarchy would expect all its subcategories to refer to the architecture by its name. This signifies the relationship between the subcategories and their parent. This is especially important in the case of the Power ISA, because there are other things with similar names that differ by only capitalization, suffixes, and the inclusion of other words. Thus, it's the omission of "ISA" from "Power ISA" that's confusing and obstructive towards easy navigation. 99Electrons (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a discussion about the use of "Power Architecture" on Wikipedia that's relevant to this discussion. 99Electrons (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 03:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 20:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clear OVERCAT, not needed - see previous consensus here and here. Upmerge. GiantSnowman 08:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read WP:NARROWCAT, which you cited:
  1. NARROWCAT: Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list. — Not so here. The intersection category reduces clutter.
  2. NARROWCAT: Even worse, an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful.. — Again, that's the inverse of this situation
  3. NARROWCAT: In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories — which does apply here.
So on all points of NARROWCAT, it supports a keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, technically "upmerge", same difference. This is overcategorization, an additional level of categories such as Category:Gabonese expatriate footballers in Lithuania is not needed and shouldn't be promoted (this just leads to pointless diffusion). And I wouldn't say categories such as Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany are "very large" to need a lower level. No other such triple intersection categories exist, for good reason as the existing categories suffice. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio, Category:Gabonese expatriate footballers in Lithuania doesn't exist per NARROWCAT for the very good reason that it would contain only one page.
That's a very different situation to the 111 pages in Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany, which you propose to add both to the 3,571 pages in Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany and to the 820 pages in Category:American expatriate soccer players.
If 3,751 doesn't for your definition of "very large", then there are v v few large categories on en.wp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of the "Expatriate footballers in Y" categories for major countries are on the larger side, though so are categories such as Category:English footballers and Category:1988 births. The main issue goes back to one of the older discussions, I think the nominator and closer's rationale summarise it well, having this category structure is simple overcategorisation and adds very little value, just like categories such as Category:Gabonese expatriate sportspeople in Lithuania. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio: Phrases such as simple overcategorisation are unreasoned statements of opinion, not reasoned arguments.
The value that Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany adds is that it diffuses 111 pages from some large categories. I dunno how many times I need to explain that point, but it seems to be getting lost.
I am happy to discuss the upper layer of cats "Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar" elsewhere, but this so not the place, so please drop the point-scoring attempts to introduce red herrings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm stating is that both of those past deletion discussions came to the conclusion that adding this whole additional layer leads to very little benefit, and promotes the creation of narrow categories. Many expatriate footballers will already be playing in more than two countries, and categories such as Category:American expatriate soccer players are used for all articles similar to Category:German footballers. Therefore, the difference is only of one category, so I highly doubt this will help reduce clutter, and isn't worth the creation of hundreds of narrow categories when tools such as PetScan allow for this type of searching. There are quite a lot of categories that could be created by diffusion and populated sufficiently, such as Category:1989 births in March (likely ~1300 people), Category:FIFA World Cup players of Brazil (nearly 350 players) or Category:English goalkeepers (over 1700 players). However, these aren't useful enough categories, just because a category can be divided using a defining characteristic doesn't mean it should, hence why overcategorisation exists. PetScan instead is a very useful tool to find these intersections of specific characteristics. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't advocate the creation of a flurry of new smallcats for Fooian expat footballers in Bar. I am advocating keeping such cats for large sets.
But this case is different to the other examples you cite, and I think that both you and GS are spending too much time look at unrelated possibilities elsewhere, and overlooking what's happening here. We have 3 attributes (sport, nationality and location) which are usually categorised two at a time. By combing that into a single triple intersection category, we reduce category clutter while breaking up an overlarge set.
The other examples which you cite — Category:1989 births in March, Category:FIFA World Cup players of Brazil & or Category:English goalkeepers — are all new intersections. This isn't a new intersection; it's a better handling of an existing intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this is an "existing intersection" when no other triple intersection categories of the format "X expatriate footballers in Y" exist. I'd say this is very similar to Category:Italian goalkeepers which was deleted, which diffused Category:Italian footballers and Category:Association football goalkeepers. Overcategorisation does very little to help readers, not every intersection which has more than a few members needs a category. In this case it makes very little difference with clutter, the outcome of both past CFD discussions seems clear as to why these categories are avoided. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio: It's an "existing intersection" because those, as I explained above, those 3 attributes (nationality, location, and sport), are already intersected with each other. The difference is that the the existing intersections take 2 attributes at a time, which requires 3 categories; whereas the triple intersection replaces those 3 cats with one.
Rather than repeating declarations such Overcategorisation does very little to help readers, please will you explain:
  1. How readers are helped by having 3 cats in each case, instead of one cat
  2. How readers are helped by dumping a 111 page category into a cat with > 3,000 pages?
It seems to me that you and GS are both fixated on the idea that triple intersections are inherently bad, without actually looking at their effects. It's disappointing to repeatedly point out those effects and be ignored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not sure why it is "disappointing" as I had already explained above, Many expatriate footballers will already be playing in more than two countries, and categories such as Category:American expatriate soccer players are used for all articles similar to Category:German footballers. Therefore, the difference is only of one category, so I highly doubt this will help reduce clutter, and isn't worth the creation of hundreds of narrow categories. The difference is quite minimal, this won't be greatly reducing the number of categories used in articles (which was also noted in the past CfD). Just because a category is larger does not mean it needs to be diffused, the same question could be asked about the usefulness of categories such as Category:1989 births to readers. And not all categories which share attributes need a triple intersection created. Categories such as Category:Olympic footballers of Brazil, Category:Footballers at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Category:Medalists at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Category:Olympic medalists for Brazil and Category:Olympic medalists in football all intersect and share similar attributes (Brazilian footballers, football medalists, 2008 Olympics), however this does not mean Category:2008 Olympic footballers of Brazil needs to be created. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio, I'm sorry, but you still seem have not read what I have written.
This type of category ("Fooian footballers in Bar") reduces the number of categories by the following formula: 1 + NumberOfCounriesThePlayerPlayedIn
So if e.g. they played in two countries, it means 3 fewer categories.
Here's the example I produced below for @Marcocapelle:
Take the example of an American soccer player who has played for teams in the UK, Italy, Spain
If there were sibling cats to Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany, then that player would be in
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players in the United Kingdom
  2. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Italy
  3. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Spain
However, currently that same player will be categorised by the same attributes as:
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players
  2. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom
  3. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Italy
  4. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Spain
  5. Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
  6. Category:Expatriate footballers in Italy
  7. Category:Expatriate footballers in Spain
So that's 3 categories instead of 7. Your assertion that the difference is only of one category is plain wrong.
There is no great novelty in this. We already have 84 by-country subcats of Category:American expatriate basketball people, 78 by-country subcats of Category:Serbian expatriate basketball people etc. Same with baseball: see e.g. 6 by-country subcats of Category:American expatriate baseball people, 5 of Category:Canadian expatriate baseball people etc.
We can look at the Olympic category another time. For now, just look at how triple intersection categories are widely used to reduce cutter on expatriate sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn't catch what I wrote. Categories such as Category:German expatriate footballers are used similarly to Category:German footballers, which is wp:non-diffusing, so therefore with the above example it is only a difference of one category per country, which is not significant enough for a triple intersection. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio: that is simply false. You have misread Category:German expatriate footballers.
If you look at again, you will see that it a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:German footballers. In other words, a page should not be remove from Category:German footballers because the player is an expat; but there is no bar to diffusing Category:German expatriate footballers by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm stating that all expatriates should be included in the expat category, so even if sub-categories were created, they should still remain in the main expat category (similar to what GS said). S.A. Julio (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the advantages of the subcategory would be to reduce the size of the parent category. What is the reason for making it non-diffusing? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the same reason Category:German footballers is non-diffusing, it is useful to have a complete category. Otherwise if more of these categories existed, it becomes strange for players who played in some countries where these categories exist, but also in other countries which do not. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then in the parent category footballers would be left who did not play in any of the countries that have a subcategory. That is not strange at all, it is just by default how the category system has been designed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So then the main expat category will be exhaustive except for players who just happened to play in countries which people decided to create subcats for. It makes more sense to be non-diffusing and categorise all expats in the main cat, just like the top nationality categories. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather the reverse, the main category will become almost empty except for players who just happened to play in small countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite unlikely. Hypothetically, if 50 were the threshold, not enough categories would meet this requirement for the main category to even be close to empty. If a footballer plays in multiple countries, but at least one doesn't have a category, they would still have to be in the main expat cat. Hence why it is more useful to operate similar to the top footballer nationality categories. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "the main expat cat" are unhelpful, because "main" could mean anything here.
@S.A. Julio assertions are still simply false.
Look again at the 3 merge targets: Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany, Category:American expatriate soccer players and Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany
  1. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany: Almost no expat sportspeople play abroad in more than one sport, so there's no need to make that non-diffusing when there are by-sport subcats such as Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany
  2. Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany: no need to make that non-diffusing, except for players with dual nationality.
So the triple intersection gives us a net gain of one less category per country
This whole proposal started from an axiomatic belief that triple intersection are inherently bad, based on a false analysis of the maths, and inversion of the cited guideline NARROWCAT. These myths have been asserted without looking at the actual effects ... and when the actual effects are pointed out, then reasons are invented why these cats should be exceptions to normal categorisation practice.
We have plenty of categories which are only partly diffused, and they work fine (see e.g. Category:Librettists). There's no reasons why soccer players can't be the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well with context it's not too difficult to determine I was referring to the main nationality expat categories, i.e. Category:German expatriate footballers. You seem to continue to dismiss my arguments with incorrect assertions. Assertions are still simply false. Look again at the 3 merge targets I'm referring to Category:American expatriate soccer players, which you didn't address. So the triple intersection gives us a net gain of one less category per country Yes, that's exactly what I said prior (which you highlighted above and also incorrectly dismissed), so no idea why you again are saying this is based on a false analysis of the maths. Regarding this whole proposal started from an axiomatic belief that triple intersection are inherently bad, no this proposal started because "X expatriate footballers in Y" is overcategorisation, and one category less isn't useful enough to need these triple intersections. I've explained why this is overcategorisation, not sure why this needs to be dismissed as "reasons are invented". I see it more useful as non-diffusing, just as nearly all German footballers are in subcats of Category:German footballers but still are in the main category as well. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, that merger would cause extra category clutter on the articles, which seems to me to be both unhelpful to readers and harder for editors to maintain.
This category currently contains 111 pages. I don't see how the usability of any of the 3 parent categories will be improved by dumping 111 pages into each of them.
Note that I don't in general think it's wise to subcat a Category:Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar category by sport, because it will usually create a set of WP:SMALLCATs. But when the resulting subcat contains over 50 pages, it seems like a very good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: by that logic, let's SUBCAT even further, say by position (so to Category:American expatriate soccer defenders in Germany etc.) or by age (so to Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany who were born in the 1980s...??? GiantSnowman 11:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, you usually seem to be a sensible editor, but comments like this one can undermine that impression.
In this case, we have a choice between one category on the age (as of now), or replacing it with 3 categories as you and GS want to do. The proposals you make would not combine 3 categories as this does. @S.A. Julio cited NARROWCAT above, misunderstanding it application, but it would apply to both Category:American expatriate soccer defenders in Germany and Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany who were born in the 1980s, because one player could be in several of those.
It really would help a lot if you too would actually read WP:NARROWCAT. It might help you to avoid these misplaced comparisons of apples and oranges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BHG you usually seem to be a sensible editor, but condescending comments like that can undermine that impression.
The upmerge would simply be from Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany to Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany and Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany - the articles are already (or should already be) in Category:American expatriate soccer players. Please see the comments/arguments at this CFD. GiantSnowman 11:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like that come when you try distraction techniques using facetious example, rather than addressing the issues at hand.
Your latest is factually wrong, @GiantSnowman.
Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany is a normal diffusing subcat of Category:American expatriate soccer players.70 articles have not been diffused, but the other 41 have been. In any up merger, it's unwise to assume that articles are already in the parent category; much better to let a bot do the merger, and handle and exceptions.
But this is all distraction from the core point. You want to take a usefully-sized category of 111 pages, and on each of those 111 pages replace it with 3 parent categories. How does this help either readers or editors of those pages or of the 3 categories which will have an extra 111 pages dumped into them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does it help readers to have such narrow categories? GiantSnowman 12:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not narrow. It's a large set, of 111 pages.
It helps readers by:
  1. by reducing category clutter on each article
  2. By sub-dividing a large category on the basis of a defining chaacteristic
Take a look at Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany. If we include its subcats, there are in total 930 pages.
However, it currently has two subcats by sport: soccer and basketball.
A reader looking for American soccer players in Germany now has a discrete set to read, uncluttered by other sportspeople. For some reason, you want to add in 50 players of other sports, and if you follow through on your logic, the basketball players should also be upmerged, putting those 111 soccer players in an undifferentiated set of 930. How does that help readers?
Then look at Category:American footballers in Germany, which currently has 3,576 pages plus the 111 Americans in the subcats. How would dumping the 111 into that huge set help readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the basketball category, this is regarding association football, there are other factors relating to that category given the stature of basketball in the US. If people are interested in very specific intersections, then I'd say PetScan would be a better option. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Petscan is an external tool, with no integration into the en.wp interface. It's no help to to readers.
And the status of a sport is one country is irrelevant. We are discussing intersection between any two countries, not simply how to handle the US.
Please can you address the actual issues I have raised here:
  1. Reduced category clutter on pages
  2. Breaking up a set of 3,756 pages without intersecting any attributes which are not already intersected.
As I asked GS, how exactly would How would dumping the 111 into that huge set help readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no interest or great knowledge in basketball and its category structure, hence why I don't think it is necessary to discuss here. And I already addressed both issues you mentioned in the upper section. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio, the basketball comparison is relevant because the structure of its expatriate categories is exactly the same as that for expat soccer players, with the only difference being that it adds an extra layer of triple intersections to both reduce clutter and diffuse the overlarge by-nationality and by-country categories. If you take a few moments to look at Category:Expatriate basketball people by nationality you can see how it works.
Compare e.g. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany with Category:American expatriate basketball people in Germany. I can see no reason to treat expat footballers differently to expat basketball people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those basketball categories are a great example of why these narrow triple intersections should be avoided. This is clear overcategorisation, 80% of the "X expatriate basketball people in Y" or "National Basketball Association players from X" have less than 50 articles, nearly 70% have less than 20 articles, 57% have 10 articles or less, and 25% have only 1 or 2 articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio, that's exactly why I wrote below[6] that the extra layer should not be created unless it passes a high threshold, of say 50 or 100 pages
The category under discussion here has 111 pages. As noted at the very start of the nomination, there is nothing in WP:NARROWCAT to deprecate it.
It seems to me that every argument you make against this category involves pointing at something else, rather than looking at the merits of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again (for the third time?), you seem to dismiss my arguments despite the fact that I already directly addressed the issues with the category in question several times in the upper section. But since you brought up this basketball category, I thought I'd mention the more general observation of the issue with these types of triple intersections. Sure, some might consider 50 the threshold, but if these categories become more widely adopted people will start adding to the overcategorisation with the creation of categories for only one or a handful of players, thus further crowding the category system and making it less useful. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take your example of an American soccer player who has played for teams in the UK, Italy, Spain
If there were sibling cats to Category:American expatriate soccer players in Germany, then that player would be in
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players in the United Kingdom
  2. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Italy
  3. Category:American expatriate soccer players in Spain
However, currently that same player will be categorised by the same attributes as:
  1. Category:American expatriate soccer players
  2. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom
  3. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Italy
  4. Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Spain
  5. Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom
  6. Category:Expatriate footballers in Italy
  7. Category:Expatriate footballers in Spain
So this type of category actually reduces clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a completely fair punt. This leads me to think that - after I have seen objections in general against triple intersections in numerous CfD discussions - that triple intersection categories aren't really a bad thing at all, provided of course they can be sufficiently populated. In this case the triple intersection will be useful for UK, Italy and Spain, but not for Gabon. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, before 2010 there was a campaign to eliminate triple intersections, but it seems to have faded away since then. I have created lots of triple intersections once I spotted how they reduced act clutter.
          I agree that in this case, the extra layer should not be created unless it passes a high threshold, of say 50 or 100 pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerges that were suggested by Julio. Triple intersections are a bad thing. Is this discussion really going to rewrite the policy in that area? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: there is no policy against triple intersections, and never has been. And as I have demonstrated above, this triple intersection category is a Good Thing™ in two way: a) it reduces category clutter on pages, and b) it subdivides an overlarge category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be interesting to see the arguments against triple intersections (apart from that it often leads to smallcat issues). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is simple maths of combinations.
If we have three attributes A, B and C we can combine them in a triple intersection as Cat:ABC.
Or we can combine them two at a time, as Cat:AB, Cat:AC, Cat:BC
Or we can take them one at a time as Cat:A, Cat:B, Cat:C
So with 3 attributes, the only way to avoid having 3 categories is to have a triple intersection.
Same with any number of attributes: combining them all produces the fewest categories. You can test it at https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/combinations-permutations.aspx
It's a pity to see straightforward counterfactuals being asserted with such certainty as @Laurel Lodged's utterly false claim that if all such triple intersections were eliminated then the number of categories would reduce even further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "the only way to avoid having 3 categories is to have a triple intersection" crucially assumes that in the presence of such a triple intersection, single categories and double categories disappear. Unfortunately, in wiki space, this does not happen: in a survey of a few American expatriate soccer players that I've examined, each one has the full panoply of single, double and triple categories. So no category count saving then in practice. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LL, that's simply a matter of category diffusion per WP:SUBCAT. Normal category maintenace, now made vastly easier by careful use of Cat-a-lot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While triple (or worse) intersections tend to be deplored, this one is well-populated, indicating that it is a notable intersection, and we should keep the category. If there were only a handful of articles, upmerging would probably have been appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BHG makes a good if somewhat lengthy case in favour of some triple intersections, such as this one. Oculi (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep triple intersections are exactly what we need to cut down the messy categorisation of expat sportspeople. As BHG says, we dont need to do this for all such intersections, but if there are more than 100 entries already this one is clearly viable. People who are interested in such things - as I am not - will presumably be looking for people from particular sports, not Fooish expat sportspeople in general. Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG, and the large number of articles within the categorisation. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While this is a triple intersection, it is well populated, which is ample reason for keeping it. The right solution is to upmerge if (but only if) a category is miniscule. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2019 (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:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic[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. Ultimately I believe the delete/support commenters have the advantage both by weight of argument as well as numerically. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If reliable sources don't list these places as being within the DPR, how can we? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NPOV issues. There has been no discussion about the creation of this cat. Given that the Donetsk People's Republic is not recognised, how is it significant that there is a population (with the only substantiated figures being provided by the unrecognised entity occupying the territory)? Such categories imply that Wikipedia chooses to recognise this entity despite global, mainstream sourcing thoroughly repudiating its existence. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The self-declared Republic is included in our List of active rebel groups. After four years of "independence" it still lacks diplomatic recognition. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't particularly concerned about the category until the recent martial law business was picked up as a major story by the mainstream media globally. There have been a plethora of background/summary articles covering developments in Ukraine since 2014 reminding readers of the circumstances of implementation of martial law. Reliable sources most certainly condemn both the DPR and LPR as Russia-backed states which would not exist without Russia's less than tacit backing. Given the reissuing of statements condemning the existence of - and rationale behind supporting - the states, it clearly flouts WP:NPOV to neutrally portray the DPR as though it were a matter of commonly supported understanding that it is a recognised, unproblematic entity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Recognition is not required to be included in Wikipedia, as long as the entity exists de-facto. Recognized by whom? By one country? by most countries? by UN assembly? we have plenty of countries with limited recognition. Donetsk is just another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs)
  • @Fayenatic london: The title of the source contains "war-ravaged Ukraine", it once mentions the Donetsk region, it once mentions that it has been occupied by the DPR. That is neither consistent nor does it actually say that the place is in the DPR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Being located in the provisional territory of an unrecognized and as yet unsuccessful secession movement is not a defining point of categorization for a populated place. Every place here is already in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Populated places in Donetsk Oblast as it is, so this is not necessary and not breaking context. No prejudice against recreation if the Donetsk People's Republic ever actually succeeds in gaining independence from Ukraine, but as long as it still is part of Ukraine the places are already appropriately categorized without needing this. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While this unrecognised polity exists, we ought to have the category for places in it. If it ceases to exist (by conquest, amalgamation, or otherwise. we may still need it for the former polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any way you look at it, these populated places are actually located in Donetsk Oblast as far as geography is concerned. Even when Jersey was temporarily controlled by Germany during WWII, it was still, in terms of geography, located in the Channel Islands. Place Clichy (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Simply put, I do not find the arguments for deletion to be convincing. There appear to be three primary arguments for deletion, which I will address in turn:
    (1) Such categories imply that Wikipedia chooses to recognise this entity despite global, mainstream sourcing thoroughly repudiating its existence. Mainstream sources "repudiat[e] its existence" as a legal entity but certainly recognize its de facto existence. Categorization on Wikipedia acknowledges the latter, not the former.
    (2) Being located in the provisional territory of an unrecognized and as yet unsuccessful secession movement is not a defining point of categorization for a populated place. It seems counter-intuitive to argue that the identity of the entity which exerts territorial control over a place is non-defining. I admit, it does smack a bit of recentism, but then again we do tend to be relatively quick to reflect political changes (e.g. Swaziland → Eswatini).
    (3) [T]hese populated places are actually located in Donetsk Oblast as far as geography is concerned. "Donetsk Oblast" is a political and legal territory, not merely a geographic area. While "Donetsk Oblast" continues to exist as a de jure entity, in reality there are two entities: a Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk and the separatist DPR.
    To be clear, I would not support creating the full range of country-level subcategories for the DPR and certainly oppose categorizing applying DPR categories to pre-2014 topics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be deleted really because of the combination of #1 of #2, not because any of the two separately. We have quickly renamed Swaziland into Eswatini because mainstream sources have accepted that equally quickly. In this case, mainstream sources accept that Donetsk People's Republic controls certain places, but not that the places are in the Donetsk People's Republic. Similarly, in a period of war, we would not quickly recategorize places if they were occupied by a hostile army. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I grant you, categorization of this type does smack a bit of recentism given the conflict is ongoing. However, categorizing places as being in the DPR is not mutually exclusive to categorizing them as being in Ukraine, so in my view it's a question of additional categorization and not recategorization. I see your point about "control" versus "in", but I think the line is blurrier in reality—for example, Famagusta is near-universally recognized as being occupied by Turkey (via the puppet state of Northern Cyprus) yet we categorize it as being "in Northern Cyprus". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding #3, if you consider that Donest Oblast is no longer a geographical designation but merely a de jure entity between is split between Ukrainian-controlled area and DPR, then where exactly on the map do you place the limit between the two? The lack of a long-term stable cease-fire line is IMHO the major difference here with the many other cases of disputed territories worldwide, such as North Cyprus, Indian/Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, Israel/West Bank & Gaza, Israeli-controlled Golan, ROC-controlled Taiwan, Transnistria/Moldova etc. DPR is a rebellious entity holding a moving piece of territory, not a geographical area. Other examples that come to my mind of comparable rebel-controlled moveable territories are: LTTE-controlled Northern Sri Lanka, FARC-controlled areas of Colombia, Khmer Rouge-controlled areas of Cambodia after their 1979 downfall, Viet Cong-controlled South Vietnam, or territory held by the several groups of the Syrian Civil War. It would make no sense to have Category:Populated places in FARC or Category:Populated places in Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, or Category:Populated places in Viet Cong. "DPR" is in the same situation. Place Clichy (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am not mistaken (and I could be), FARC, JFS, and the VC did not declare and operate a de facto state in the territories they controlled, unlike the DPR. As far as "a moving piece of territory", my impression was the Donetsk front had been fairly static since mid-2015/early 2016. Thus, while acknowledging your point about the DPR's relative newness, and without intending any comment on the legitimacy of any of these entities, I compare this category to Category:Populated places in Abkhazia, Category:Populated places in Northern Cyprus, etc. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Abkhazia is a province of Georgia and already had a defined border before seceding. North Cyprus has a UN-defined and guarded cease-fire line. The Donetsk case cannot be compared to any of these two. FARC, VC or LTTE definitely operated a de facto state much like the DPR, and their situation is much more comparable in terms of geography. Place Clichy (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I do not place as much importance on a defined border prior to secession given borders become fluid in times of war. I think it is more significant who controls a particular territory, regardless of pre-war boundaries, than who claims to be the legitimate authority but is unable to exercise control. Again, I disagree with the parallels to FARC, the VC, or the LTTE as, to the best of my recollection, they did not ever declare an independent state. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely looking at the name, Category:Populated places in Abkhazia refers to the region of Georgia just as much as the territory of the secessionist republic. Abkhazia is a worthwhile geographical entity, DPR is not. Nobody would argue against a sentence like "Sukhumi is located in Abkhazia" and it does not make any assumption on the recognition status thereof, while "village XYZ is located in Donetsk People's Republic" does not make much sense in terms of geography because one day it is in it, one day it is not. Front lines are not drawn on atlas maps - permanent cease-fire lines are (correlate to WP:Wikipedia is not news). Unless of course you consider all of Donetsk Oblast to be in DPR, because it is what they claim. Claims do not matter here, international recognition status even less. Only geography matters. Place Clichy (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the boundaries of Abkhazia, Kosovo, Taiwan, Transnistria, Artsakh etc are more or less well-sourced and it was stable, but Donetsk People's Republic just can't compare to those unrecognised state that had been frozen since end of cold war. Matthew hk (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorization (of towns etc) should be (only) by more permanent characteristics than which side of a front line they are currently on. DexDor (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's Donetsk Oblast. Besides we're not here to define fluid war boundaries. --Darwinek (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a minimum we should exclude from this category any claimed place where the Republic does not have actual physical control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly believe that NPOV requires us not to take sides in an a contested secession like this. Instead we should categorise both by the de facto political geography (i.e. the DPR), and by the de jure political geography (i.e. Donest Oblast of Ukraine). We should leave readers to make up their own minds which POV they prefer.
If there is evidence that the de facto boundaries of the DPRI are hard to verify or are wildly unstable, then I could be persuaded that this particular instance is not verifiable. But so far, I see no such evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to Donetsk_People's_Republic#Geography, the area controlled by the DPR is significantly less than the whole oblast. Moreover, that area has been stable since Feb 2015. IMHO it is defining for those places to be within the control of DPR. I haven't checked all the citations but the evidence was sufficient for me. – Fayenatic London 11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This remains an active and ongoing conflict, and it does not IMO violate NPOV to fail to recognise a de jure territory. SportingFlyer T·C 04:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Marco's rationale above. The question of whether Makiivka is a place in Donetsk People's Republic according to reliable sources is one for an article; that is it's proper place. A category is not the place to have a debate about it. That the Donetsk People's Republic is a de facto reality is sufficient for such an article to exist. Wiki need not go further and quasi legitimise it's claims by creating categories for them. Allowing the category to exist definitely implies that Wiki is recognising territorial claims of the Donetsk People's Republic. That is not the place of Wiki; Wiki can only report on reliable sources. At the moment, only Ukraine has reliable proofs that Makiivka is a populated place at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep] -- It is indeed an unrecognised state, but so is Transnistria and several more. It is de facto self-governing and in control of a territory, so that I see no reason why we should not have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2019 (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.

Inmates by prison[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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories in Category:Prisoners and detainees by prison. Renata (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am somewhat troubled by this nom, because it is mixing up prisons used for quite different purposes. Marshalsea and Fleet were mainly places of imprisonment for debt. Colditz was a Prisoner of War Camp. Qahqaheh Castle seems to have been a political prison, but this seeks to make all kinds of prison much the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_21

Leave a Reply