Category talk:Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland

Do we really need this page?

As the talk title says, what exactly is the purpose of this 'category', other than arbitrarily list people who once were detainees or prisoners in Switzerland, since it would be already mentioned in their own biography page. Unless this page is populated by ALL those who were EVER detained or imprisoned, famous or otherwise, this page is relatively 'pointless'. 'Three people' does not warrant an entire 'category'. 109.153.105.18 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is for articles about people who are notable for having been a prisoner or detainee of Switzerland. It contains far more than 3 articles, since it also holds subcategories. If you want it deleted, you have to nominate it using the procedure found at WP:CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it would only list people who were once detained or incarcerated in Switzerland, that would mean a lot more people than those listed, of which only one listed is presently inside. This cat is as pointless as plenty others in fact if they serve no more purpose than create a special cat for 'certain people'. The entire Swiss prison population would need to be listed there if this cat were to be taken serious. All I see is:

A Stanley Adams (whistleblower) F Peter Friederich P Roman Polanski

That doesn't really warrant an entire cat & I don't see anyone going to populate it any time soon. 109.153.105.18 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring all the subcategories, and the fact that categories only apply to articles for which it is a defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory to information on a particular topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - but at the end of the day this cat like plenty others are pointless nitpicking certain people unless they are in fact populated to BE 'comprehensive'. 109.153.103.76 (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that they capture defining characteristics of the person. So if it's a "defining characteristic", it can't really be "nitpicking", since it's a central detail of the person's life. If it's not defining for someone, they don't belong in the category, thus we lose comprehensivity. That's the theory of how they are meant to work, anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Defining characteristic'? And there I was thinking that would be 'film director', & he's not a 'detainee of Switzerland' ANYMORE. In fact, to put him into that cat IS 'nitpicking'. (Shared IP.) 86.161.180.233 (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]