Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Diarists by nationality

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. The decision was to keep the categories.

Category:Diarists by nationality
(also Category:British diarists, Category:English diarists, Category:Welsh diarists)

This entire scheme is quite underpopulated, and the List of diarists page doesn't offer much hope of even Category:Diarists growing too large. The diarist connection is a very loose one – even moreso, a grouping of them by nationality. I don't see the point in sending a reader to a subcategory two levels below Category:Diarists when that sub-category contains only 3-4 articles. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * Retain I have had a long debate with this user, who is relentlessly determined to sabotage my work on the overall British Writers category. I have been supported by two other users on my user page and he has been supported by no-one.
 * As Netoholic knows, these categories are part of my effort to create an overall category for Literature of the United Kingdom, which has involved me making a number of edits which must now be a long way in four figures. No one else has objected to any aspect of this project, which I believe to be of great value. The reason for having detailed subcategories is that I wish to ensure that all British writer articles can be accessed through the global writer categories, the "Literature of the United Kingdom" menu, and the main categories for each of the nations of the UK (England, Soctland, Wales and Northern Ireland). It is distressing that just one aspect of this project is being subjected to a sustained attack, as without the diarist categories, the whole project can never be fully completed. If Netoholic cannot see any merit in the category system (he has told me that I should be using lists and only lists), he should not try to inflict this limitation on the rest of us.
 * There are "by nationality" categories for around a dozen types of writer already, so the debate on whether such categories are appropriate should be considered closed. As the number of articles increases more subcategories are required (especially as the subcategory menus do not work properly where there are more than 200 articles in a category). Furthermore it is desirable to create categories which clearly have a future as soon as possible, so avoiding the need for the categorisation of the relevant articles to be done in two stages.
 * There are now 16 articles in these categories. There will be more in the future. There are hundreds if not thousands of prominent writers and other public figures who have published diaries. If Netoholic thinks the list of diarists is too short, perhaps he would like to expand it. It would certainly be a more useful contribution to Wikipedia than his current obsession with destroying my categoriesPhilip 23:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you may be prescribing too much, basing it on a false understanding. We've agreed that we should be "frugal" when assigning categories in a "vertical dimension".  This is because categories aren't primarily meant to exist as a top-down scheme for filing.  Our readers come to the Category space to find articles of similar interest. In Samuel Pepys, for example, I would say that using Category:English writers and Category:Diarists are just about as detailed as you need to be. Both would be useful for readers, in different contexts. By using Category:English diarists, you bury it in a thinly-connected scheme below where it would be helpful. If the answer to the question "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" is "No", then we shouldn't use it.  I doubt very much that England has a connected historical tradition of keeping diaries to where you could make a convincing link among these authors.  -- Netoholic @ 00:28, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * Of course it is possible to write a few paragraphs about the tradition of keeping diaries in Britain. I would be rather surprised if no academic has written a whole book on the subject. Why don't you do something more useful instead of keeping up this insulting and distressing barrage? Philip 00:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea that one category is sufficient for all English writers is ridiculous. There were already many categories for different types of English writer before I discovered Wikipedia, so it is utterly pointless to reopen the issue now. There were also several categories for British writers, and the two systems were operating in parallel, meaning that they were both incomplete and liable to mislead readers about the amount of material avaialable in Wikipedia. I am trying to reconcile the two systems. I wouldn't mind only having categories for British writers, but aware that this would offend the sensibilities of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, I have taken on the extra burden of devising a system which embraces both approaches. It is very upsetting that the feedback I get is an attack on one small corner of this project, repeated over and over and over again, and not accompanied by the slightest recognition of the overall effort I am making.
 * You have misunderstood the point about "frugality" which is a request not to put articles into both head categories and their subcategories, rather than a comment of any kind on category creation. Furthermore, you are once again invoking a gently worded suggestion as a firm rule which you imply I am obliged to follow.Philip 00:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea that one category is sufficient for all English writers is ridiculous. There were already many categories for different types of English writer before I discovered Wikipedia, so it is utterly pointless to reopen the issue now. There were also several categories for British writers, and the two systems were operating in parallel, meaning that they were both incomplete and liable to mislead readers about the amount of material avaialable in Wikipedia. I am trying to reconcile the two systems. I wouldn't mind only having categories for British writers, but aware that this would offend the sensibilities of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, I have taken on the extra burden of devising a system which embraces both approaches. It is very upsetting that the feedback I get is an attack on one small corner of this project, repeated over and over and over again, and not accompanied by the slightest recognition of the overall effort I am making.
 * You have misunderstood the point about "frugality" which is a request not to put articles into both head categories and their subcategories, rather than a comment of any kind on category creation. Furthermore, you are once again invoking a gently worded suggestion as a firm rule which you imply I am obliged to follow.Philip 00:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Retain. I can't see a problem with these categories, and we have someone who cares passionately about them.-gadfium 01:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Netoholic that this sort of overcategorisation is not good. Diarists is a narrow enough category, without breaking it down by nationality as well.  I also think that Pcpcpc should try not to see Netoholic's vote for deletion as some kind of personal attack.  Remember to assume good faith - enhancing the usability of Wikipedia is our common interest.  Well done for your efforts, Philip, but remember this is a community effort and all contributions are likely to be edited mercilessly.
 * Retain. I don't see this as over-categorisation - they fit in with the guidelines, are very similar to many other uncontroversial categories, are being actively developed, and have great potential. Why delete? Jihg 22:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)