Talk:Conrad Glass

Categorization

Category:British politicians is for politicians of the United Kingdom and predecessor states. Tristan da Cunha is a part of the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. British Overseas Territories are "under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom" but "they do not, however, form a part of it." I'm reverting @Bearcat:'s incorrect recategorization, but this explanation was too long to fit in an edit history. Revent^talk 19:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Then find or create a more appropriate replacement for it. Category:Politicians is a container category which may only contain subcategories and is under no circumstances ever allowed to directly contain any individual politician from any country — so it is not the appropriate place for him. "British" may not be the ideal category for a person from a British overseas territory, but as long as the British overseas territories are under British jurisdiction it remains more appropriate than the undifferentiated Category:Politicians would be. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bearcat: That's interesting. Especially since Category:Politicians is a diffuse category, not a container category. I'm not going to start an edit war with you over it, but....please read WP:DIFFUSE, specifically the line "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused – some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." Then fix your mistake, again. Revent^talk 21:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, my apology. I thought from what you said that you readded him to the "British" subcat. What I get for responding to the message instead of the edit. Revent^talk 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Having given Bearcat ample time to respond (He has edited since, so obviously has seen my ping) I've put this article back in Category:Politicians. If someone wants to CORRECTLY add this to a more specific subcategory, then please do so. The idea that it's better to incorrectly overcategorize a article (the scope of Category:British politicians is quite well defined) than to leave it in the parent category is bizzare. @Bearcat:, I am not obligated to make edits to create new WP:SMALLCAT categories just because you misunderstand what a diffusing category is or it's purpose. If you think that is appropriate, then you can take responsibility for it. Just don't break things that aren't broken. You should know better. Revent^talk 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some categories that it's acceptable to only partially diffuse, yes; those are invariably smaller categories that would have only a hundred or so articles even if left undiffused. However, Wikipedia also has some other "container" categories for which diffusion is deemed mandatory, and leaving the article in the undiffused parent category is not an acceptable substitute — this applies to any category whose scope is so broad that it would be populated into the thousands or tens of thousands, such as Category:Politicians. In addition, an appropriate national or subnational category to contain Mr. Glass would not be a SMALLCAT violation — SMALLCAT explicitly clarifies that if geographic diffusion by country is in place as a standard feature of the category, then any relevant division gets to have a subcategory even if there's only one entry. So no, there's no reason why Conrad Glass can't be appropriately subcatted. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bearcat:Then, as I stated above, do so. Make the subcategory, and add him to it. Don't run around two weeks after your comment here and change Category:Politicians from a diffusing category to a container category (it had been marked as a diffusing category since 2006, when the template for them was created) just so you can 'win' an argument here. You were wrong about what type of category it is, blatantly, and instead of admitting you were wrong you are apparently trying to move the goalposts. It is perfectly acceptable for the politicians category to contain articles about politicians that do not belong in an existing subcategory, until such time as an appropriate subcategory is created, this has always been true for diffusing categories. It is also acceptable for the category to contain articles about politicians until they are sorted into subcategories... this has also always been true for diffusing categories. By changing the type of the category, you're just inviting people to (as happened) remove him from the category instead of subcategorizing him. Now we are again left with the only person on Wikipedia who has held the highest elected political office in a legislative body that itself has a Wikipedia article not categorized as a politician. This is inane.

I did not say that it would be a 'smallcat violation'... I said that it would be a category that is "Small with no potential for growth", which is what 'smallcat' refers to, and is blatantly true. I choose to not create a new category that will only have, and is quite likely to only ever have, one member. If you feel so strongly that the article shouldn't be in 'politicians', then make the subcategory yourself, and then you can deal with the people who will want to delete it.

You have now made a change, removing him from politicians (and putting him in the wrong category) which was reverted, with a request to bring it to the talk page. You then made the same change again, without discussion, with a 'justification' that was patently incorrect, and only five hours later bothered to respond to the talk page, with a highly italicized rant with was also patently incorrect. You then decided to go edit the category itself to try to 'make' yourself correct. This is annoying, and disregarding the need to establish consensus. You obviously, at this point, know how to solve the problem 'correctly', to your own satisfaction, and have been invited to do so by making the subcategory. Do so, or leave him in Politicians, as he obviously is one. When there is a content dispute that has been reverted the status quo remains, unless there is an overriding policy such as BLP, until a consensus has been established.

Also, when you respond directly to someone, it's polite to ping them. Revent^talk 14:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, a "small category with no potential for growth" is not a SMALLCAT violation if the category in question is part of an accepted overall subcategorization scheme, such as subdividing an occupational category by country. If that "exemption" applies, as it does here, then every relevant division is allowed its own subcategory even if it would be a category of one. And accordingly, that does not constitute a valid reason for somebody to be left directly in Category:Politicians instead of a country-specific subcategory.

And secondly, the point you're missing is that "diffusing" categories still have to be diffused. Which is why they're called "diffusing". Bearcat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bearcat:(to your first point) If you read what I wrote, I specifically said it wouldn't be a smallcat violation. I also said I don't see any need to create a new category that is likely to only ever have one member, and invited you do do so if you felt the need. The guy is a politician, and belongs in either Politicians or a subcategory.

(to your second point)I'm sure that's why the template says "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable." (my bolding) Also read WP:DIFFUSE, which specifically says... "If the proper subcategory for an article does not exist yet, either create the subcategory or leave the article in the parent category for the time being."

You're not showing that you have much understanding for how categories are supposed to work. Also, thanks for not pinging me again, after I specifically asked you to. Revent^talk 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

3O

Hi, I'd like to help with this difficulty if possible. I am not familiar with the person, or the detail around the category issue, so can I start by asking a couple of basic questions? i) Are there any examples of other people in the POLITICIAN category? ii) Does this person fit into any sub-category readily? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are not currently other people in the politicians category, but there are other articles that don't fit into subcategories.. at the moment Politician and astronaut-politician. I certainly believe there have been in the past, though....the category has been a diffusing category since diffusing categories existed.

The person in question is from Tristan da Cunha, which is a British Overseas Territory, and served a term as the Chief Islander of the Tristan da Cunha Island Council, which is the highest elected office on the island. The island itself has a population of less than 300 people, so it is exceedingly unlikely that there will ever be another notable politician from there. Residents of Tristan da Cunha are British Overseas Territories citizens, not British citizens, so he doesn't fit there, and there appears to be no subcategory where he actually does fit. I've invited @Bearcat: to go ahead and create the 'one person only, ever' category if he wants to, but I don't think it would survive a deletion discussion, and not calling him a politician seems rather silly.

FYI, his notability is not based on his holding that office, but it is a notable thing about him. Revent^talk 10:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Revent. Given British Overseas Territory is not deemed part of the UK per se, and that it doesn't seem right to pop him in Politician (which seems a topic category rather than a set category, anyway) would it be worth developing a parallel category to Category:Political office-holders in the United Kingdom for BOT's? Presumably there are other notable people who have also been Political office-holders in the British Overseas Territories? Alternatively, Category:Local Politicians seems appropriate too. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Blippy: Yeah, I was not saying that Category:Politicians is where he belongs permanently, it's a diffusing category, just that he should be in it until he was sorted in some appropriate way. Category:Local politicians seems to have the same issue, though it's missing a description.. it's completely diffused into subcategories, none of which seems to fit (mayors and city councilmen, and geographic). Really, Category:Political office-holders in the British Overseas Territories would probably be best, though I haven't searched for any other potential members. Revent^talk 10:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries Revent, sounds like a plan :-) I'd say that Category:Local politicians is probably less jarring than Category:Politicians until/if Category:Political office-holders in the British Overseas Territories comes into existence. And by jarring, I guess I mean it is lower in the hierarchy and provides more useful information than the higher level Cat does per se. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record

This article was originally created by a user who had been blocked from editing Wikipedia, and who was using a sockpuppet account to evade the block. Standard practice for articles created by means of block evasion is that the articles are to be deleted regardless of their merits (and with no prejudice against their being re-created by other users), unless the article has been substantially expanded by other users. Because this article has been substantially expanded by other users, it will not be deleted (or, at least, it will not be deleted solely on the grounds of having been created by a blocked user). User:DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)