Nominator's rationale:Delete. I believe this level of subdivision takes the athlete-politicians category scheme too far. If we assume that categorizing someone as an "athlete-politician" is not overcategorization (and this is a debatable point), surely we don't want to take it one step further into possible overcategorization territory. (See also the related nomination below.) Good Ol’factory(talk)23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Category:Sportsmen-politicians The category has been nominated for deletion at least 2 times before — the arguments/persons in the previous discussions indicate that there is sufficient interest in the category. (But it might be nice if there was a personal user setting, so that a user can hide a category that one does not like to see on the screen. Perhaps it would ruin my mama's day (or mine) if one's eyes had to be bothered by reading category:porn actresses-turned-politicians.)--Arvein (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There must be a limit to everything. But no one has made a good case for where the sub-categorization must stop. In Iran, champion wrestlers get elected to political office. In Norway, I do not know about any wrestlers who became Norway-champions, and then were elected to political office; maybe there is one, maybe more. Yes, this in not only my wikipedia or Good Ol’factory's wikipedia. (Prediction: one day the category:athlete-politician will be obsolete, when wikipedia will revamp its search engine so that one can search category:athlete + category:politician. But until then I will have to deal with my sockpuppet investigation due to critical edits to Norway-related topics Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav#14_September_2011.)--Arvein (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There have been some vigorous no-consensus discussions over whether the "athlete-politicians" category tree should be kept or deleted: here and here. As long as the tree is going to exist by default, we should at least get things right.
(1) In the category tree, Category:Athletes is not used because of its ambiguity, but in most countries, "FOOian athletes" means FOOians who compete in athletics, ie, track and field and related sports: see subcategories of Category:Athletes by nationality. So for most countries we should not be using "athletes" to mean "sports competitors in general". "Sportsperson–politicians" therefore seems to be more correct than "athlete–politicians", since most of the individuals in this tree are not track and field athletes. I haven't suggested renaming the American category since "athlete-politicians" is the terminology that is generally used in the USA.
Not rename as suggested per your suggestion. If you had suggested Sportsperson-politician from Nation, then I expect that you would have my full support. This is my "expert opinion" after having subcategorized the majority of the articles that previously were in the athlete-politician category. (On my talk page I have tried to "open a subdiscussion to explain why".)--Arvein (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both the politicians category and the sportspeople categories use "FOOian BARs", as do the parent categories Category:FOOian people and I don't see any good reason to depart from that standard here. And frankly I don't think creating a bunch of subcategories makes anyone an "expert" in anything. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Is this for the borough or the district or the county town? Add to that the other uses on Maidstone (disambiguation)? I'll let those in the know decide if there is a better name then the one proposed. The links in the category imply that this is for either the district or the borough. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The borough is the same thing as the district - see Borough status in the United Kingdom. The category is piped but appears to be for the borough - there seems to be a general problem with the Kent categories (and probably other places) as they seem to be based on the districts/boroughs/city but copy the main town/city article title. The whole structure may need a rethink. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rotana
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment When I created this category, I deliberately chose not to use "constituencies" because local government electoral divisions are not called that; "electoral divisions" was intended to encompass both "parliamentary constituencies" and "council wards". But there currently seems to be only one article about wards, so I guess "constituencies" is a good enough cover term. jnestorius(talk)10:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Since most major record labels will release soundtracks along with albums by their signed artists, I don't see how categorizing them as a "film soundtrack record label" is defining to the label. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete The category is named after a piece of software but there's no reason to think that it will ever contain any article other than Goobi. Pichpich (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. This is a follow up from this discussion, where there was general agreement that these types of categories for architects should be upmerged. These are the categories that weren't formally nominated with the previous nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There no reason to make such a narrow category. The articles will have the American architects category and the descent category. It doesn't need to be any more clear.Curb Chain (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I don't find the intersection meaningful. It's not like architects of French descent share the common habit of designing their buildings so that they look like baguettes. :-) Pichpich (talk) 12:47, 13 September 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.
Ambassadors of Colombia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a bit of a test nomination to see if this general pattern could be developed for most of the ambassadors categories. I can think of three reasons to prefer the proposed format:
(1) Accuracy. Technically, one does not have to be a FOOian national to be an ambassador of FOO. A Venezuelan national could be selected to act as an ambassador of Colombia. This is particularly relevant in the history of some countries prior to the 20th century, where they commonly employed non-nationals as ambassadors.
Just a quick comment on (1). Maybe it's just me but when I read "Colombian ambassador", I understand that this means "ambassador of Colombia" and not "ambassador who happens to be Colombian". Arguments (2) and (3) are more compelling. Pichpich (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is very true, and I agree—but I think you will find cases where users have removed such categories from articles, arguing that the person in question was "not a FOOian citizen". So although you can get away with it, the change is partly to avoid such confusion. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – "Colombian ambassador" is ambiguous: one could have a Colombian who was the ambassador of Venezuela to Brazil. And arguments (2) and (3) are also compelling. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - First of all I am the one who has created like 80% of those categories, and from the begginig I felt weird about them, but because the categories that were already there did follow the "Category:Colombian ambassador to" format I just went with it, it wasnt until I had created the "Category:Colombian ambassadors to Russia" and it was subsequently renamed "Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Russia" that I realized that another format would work better, but I didnt want to go edit each and every one of those pages and reformat them myself when there are other methods (like this) to do so. One thing though, I really would like this to become the general pattern for ambassador categories but I couldnt help but notice this then and now that in the already generalized Category:Ambassadors to Russia page, the only category that, how shall I say this, gets "special" exclusion or treatment is the "Category:United States ambassadors to Russia, which just goes against the rest of categories. mijotoba (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, with caveat - be aware that for some countries, using the demonym will be problematic (Dominica/Dom. Rep; DRCongo/RoCongo; PRChina/RoChina). Grutness...wha?01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment/suggestion Should we leave category redirects behind? My hunch is that some of the Fooian ambassadors category will be mistakenly recreated. Pichpich (talk) 14:01, 14 September 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.
