Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 3

< December 2	December 4 >

December 3

Category:Filmed deaths

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I find this category does nothing but to benefit the morbid, also it make no difference to a generic unfilmed category other than to benefit the morbid who will try to search it up on youtube. In short, Wikipedia is not Rotten.com.

Other rationale: Not to mention that dying in live sporting event will always be common, especially for a sport as dangerous as motorsport, extreme sport and boxing, not to mention also for entertainers, why that, drugs is one of them of course.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Donnie Park (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Isn't WP:NOT#CENSORED relevant here? The fact that I agree with the nominator's description of these categories as as for "the morbid" is irrelevant: Wikipedia doesn't exist to flatter anyone's sense of decorum.
It seems to me that the relevant question is whether the filming of the death was a defining characteristic of the people involved ... and all the examples which I have looked at, I think it is. In Iraq: Execution of Saddam Hussein, Kenneth Bigley. In Category:Filmed deaths from falls: Franz Reichelt, The Falling Man and Owen Hart. I can't guarantee that all the subjects articles in these categories are similarly defined by the filmed death, and if there are any inappropriately-categorized articles they should be removed. But genre of filmed executions in Iraq does seem to me to a highly notable phenomenon (albeit a grueseome one), and in other cases the fact of a death being filmed does demonstrably give it a sort of notoriety. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not forgetting dying in a live sports event will always be common, especially in sports typically as dangerous as boxing and motorsport, hence I say the one that will have to be purged the most is the sports one, plus filmed or not filmed will make no difference. As for that cat. I mentioned, we will end up being cluttered with a list of every sportsperson who died during a football/boxing/rugby/ American football/baseball/cricket match which makes no difference to the one for those who died in their specific sports. As this will tell you that is the main motivation for deletion is also there is no difference between one for unfilmed deaths and another one that is for filmed deaths. Donnie Park (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCENSORED and having a death recorded is unusual, so a defining death characteristic. As most sports events are not filmed, even the dangerous sports, that is still something out of the ordinary. Also, even if the fatal injury is sustained on a dangerous sporting event, many times, they do not die until hours later, and thus not dying on film. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant. Why is it important to note that the deaths were filmed? Seems like a trivial intersection to me. In all cases, the articles are already more accurate categories, in some cases, multiple categories. Reso lute 06:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTCENSORED and a defining characteristic relating to the indivduals in question. Lugnuts (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact the death is filmed seems trivial, generally if the death has been filmed there are far greater claims to notability. Simply having your death filmed would not make you notable. Bevo74 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This squeamish objection seems entirely immaterial. Varlaam (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Whether or not something has been filmed has not been determined to be defining— there's no Category:Filmed births nor any other "Filmed foo" branch to be found. Neither are there Category:Televised foos, nor Category:Foos recorded in print.- choster 22:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spot checked a number and found a few doubtful cases, but almost all the entries are for events where the fact of the death being filmed is relevant and important, not just of peripheral interest DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG eloquently expressed my opinion. I think it's mordid yet encyclopedic. I see some people give priority writing articles on some of these deaths. Royal broil 14:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on keep Have any of you who voted keep ever consider that film deaths in sport is tragically common, which is one rationale you have ignored. Donnie Park (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not censored. --Plasma Twa 2 23:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster. Hekerui (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly merge some of the sub cats which I feel have drifted into WP:OC. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is far from clear that this fact is defining. As DGG points out, some of the included articles are doubtful which tells me that the contents need maintenance since it is not easy to determine if in fact the article belongs. The introduction states "This category features disasters and people who have died or received fatal injuries..." Well, we have disasters, deaths and fatal injuries included but not clearly identified in the name. So this category is a gathering place for many different things. While I believe that there may well be a case for a category of filmed deaths of some type, this is not it. The question then becomes, is the structure in place worth saving? I'm not convinced that it is. If the categories are kept, then a major cleanup is needed starting with the category introduction which needs to gain some focus. This should be part of the closing comments if this is actually kept. I really have a problem with the keep votes that are because the wiki is not censored. Clearly that is an issue with articles and article content and as far as can see an issue with keeping or deleting this group of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2009 (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:Clontarf

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clontarf to Category:Clontarf, Dublin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the main article, Clontarf, Dublin, and to distinguish from all the measly little copycat places listed at Clontarf (disambiguation), which presumably copied the name in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename, as below. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename because even slightly annoyed Irish lasses scare me just a little bit. (Seriously, yeah, this is an easy one.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2009 (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:Blackrock

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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Blackrock to Category:Blackrock, Dublin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with main article Blackrock, Dublin. (There are other places in Ireland called Blackrock, most notably Blackrock, County Cork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename May be speedy, AFAIAC. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename just like Clontarf. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above Djln--Djln (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (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:Indian Companies owning UK Brands

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 all 3. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A category containing just one item. What use is this? Biker Biker (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though a better-named category may have a place if it can be populated with five or more articles. The sole article here is Jaguar Land Rover, which is not belong in "Indian Companies owning UK Brands", because it is actually the reverse: a UK brand owned by an Indian company. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a ridiculous criteria for categorisation. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also added Category:International Brand Ownership Transfers as it's the parent category. — ξ ^xplicit 04:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot: I like the nominator's statement- "What use is this?" I can find none. Yes, we all know and understand; India and the People's Republic of China are getting richer and investing in the West. Someday, these categories might be populated by hundreds of articles. Today, though, they're just too much categorization. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (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:High School! Kimengumi

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: 3 articles are not enough for a category by themselves Extremepro (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of many category structures. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only three articles, all of which should be link to each other, there is no need for this category. "part of many category structures", which I take to mean as being a sub-cat of many other categories, is not a valid reason to keep. —Farix (t | c) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "3 articles are not enough for a category by themselves" is an invalid reason for deletion. There's no reason not to have the category, either, and having it does not hurt the project. There are many groups of articles with navigation templates which link to everything within the specific category for the group, too, so "only three articles, all of which should be link to each other" is not a valid reason to delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge to all the parents. I have never quite grasped how 'OCAT' applies to small categories ... I can see that 'category sprawl' can be a problem if everything related to say 'John Wayne' is dumped in his category, but this seems a tidy and well-focussed trio of articles. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2009 (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:Images whose source is updated regularly

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These two categories contain only one image, which hasn't been updated since it was uploaded in 2005. If this system of categorization was fully implemented and maintained, it could be useful; however, I don't believe that this issue can be tackled at this level or with a top-down approach. In the end, it will come down to individual editors working on individual articles who notice that an image is no longer recent or up-to-date and try to find a newer image. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Funny case. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking closer, I see that the image is not meant to be updated HERE monthly, but is updated at the source monthly. Meaning the actual image used will no longer be at the site it was pulled from... (At least, that's how I've interpreted this...) Now, one is an obvious delete; but the regularly category could have some potential uses. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (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:Wikipedia images by quality

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 16. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia images by quality to Category:Wikipedia images

Nominator's rationale: There are only two quality classes for images, "valued" and "featured"—both of which already appear in Category:Wikipedia images directly—so this category cannot have more than two members for the forseeable future. "Selected" is a designation for images used by portals, but it is not an assessment of quality so much as of relevance and significance to the subject of the portal. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely feels like a "don't we have bigger fish to fry?" issue, but I'm not opposed to the merge.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the parent category per Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule (just like Category:Architecture Selected pictures doesn't have it, which is also in Category:Wikipedia images by quality, albeit unnoticed by the nominator), and add Category:Wikipedia valued pictures to Category:Wikipedia images by quality as well. That would be more logical. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did notice the selected pictures category, but it doesn't belong in this category since "selected pictures" is not an image quality class. That a picture is a "selected picture" just means that an editor decided to use it in a portal because it was relevant or significant to the subject of the portal; it is not an assessment of the image's quality. In the end, the category could house only the two categories for valued and featured pictures. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then just remove Category:Architecture Selected pictures from here. But the argument remains valid, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still support merging, but for now I've removed the selected pictures category and added the valued pictures one. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then at this point I'd say keep, but remove parent category per Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (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:Architecture Selected pictures

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 to Category:Architecture selected pictures and apply category to talk pages only. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~As far as I know, this is the only category of its type: one that is used by one portal only and which contains content other than the subpages of the portal.~~ Subpages of a portal can be placed in an eponymous category of the portal (e.g., Category:Philosophy portal), but I do not think that portals should begin categorizing articles or files. While this could potentially work as a talk page category, I think that a list maintained for the portal (Portal:Architecture/Selected picture archive) is a better way of keeping track of "selected pictures" than a template-populated (see {{Architecture SI}}) category. (Category creator not notified because: inactive or retired. Portal:Architecture notified.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is kind of more common than appears, I think. At WP:COMICS we use Category:Comics articles used on portals, which I think does a similar thing, through the project banner. There's a number of projects which do this. The implementation looks a little different, but not drastically. Thoughts? Hiding T 13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking deeper into this, it appears that there are other similar categories (e.g., Category:California selected pictures) in addition to the ones you point out. Since this is apparently not the only one of its type, I would like to suggest then that this be renamed to Category:Architecture selected pictures and made into a talk page category (i.e., categorizing only file talk pages). (By the way, I have notified WikiProject Architecture of this discussion.) Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. What you suggest works for me. Hiding T 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For now, I've recategorised the category into Category:NA-Class Architecture articles. It's not ideal since it really should be a subcategory of Category:Architecture portal, but it's the closest existing parent category. I'm reluctant to create Category:Architecture portal without knowing more about how the Architecture portal is maintained, since such a category may be completely unnecessary for that particular portal. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:53, 4 December 2009 (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:User page galleries

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User page galleries to Category:Wikipedia image galleries

Nominator's rationale: It seems to me that there is no reason to separate these categories. Firstly, neither one contains more than a handful of pages, so there is no size-related reason to keep them separate. Secondly, while there is a big difference between mainspace and non-mainspace image galleries, the difference between image galleries in different non-mainspace namespaces doesn't seem as significant.

If kept, rename to Category:Wikipedia user namespace image galleries or Category:Wikipedia image galleries in user namespace. The title "Category:User page galleries" suggests that the category contains galleries of user pages or that it contains image galleries on user pages, neither of which is accurate. The category contains galleries of images located in the user namespace (on user subpages). (Category creator not notified because: indef-blocked.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They address different namespaces, and the word "Wikipedia" isn't really needed her for disambiguation. If we start using this line of reasoning too strict we'll soon have "Wikipedia category:Wikipedia pages having little or no Wikipedia references". Debresser (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that the difference in namespaces is significant enough, considering the fact that they are both non-mainspace namespace, to keep two categories? If so, what do you think of Category:User namespace image galleries or Category:Image galleries in user namespace (no "Wikipedia")? I suppose I may have gone overboard with the "Wikipedia"; it's probably not necessary if "user {something}" is specified. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy you agree with me that "Wikipedia" is not really necessary in this case. It is sometimes usefull to keep categories in different namespaces separate, but on second consideration I agree that Category:User page galleries better be merged into Category:Wikipedia image galleries, since, as you said, 1. the main difference is between article mainspace and other namespaces; 2. they are small anyway. So that makes now merge without rename. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (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:Wikipedia voting images

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. (Category has also remained empty.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Most consensus-driven processes in Wikipedia are not (supposed to be) votes and the use of symbols is discouraged in discussions, so there is no need for a category for voting icons. This category may once have contained multiple files, but now it has only one member. File:Symbol opinion vote.svg is already on Commons, where it is appropriately categorized. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia voting icons as the current title is quite confusing: "Wikipedia voting images" suggests that the category is for Wikipedia images related to voting and elections. However, I don't see any advantage to keeping the category... (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - But not for the exact same reason as the nominator. Right, that image is now on Commons, so it doesn't need a description page here. And that description page only contained a category. So I have now deleted that image description page. And that leaves this category empty and unused, thus it should be deleted. But I leave the final decision on that to someone else since I don't know how we usually handle category deletions. --David Göthberg (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, but I wasn't sure to what extent that is considered an acceptable practice with images. Now that the category is empty, it can be deleted if it is still empty in four days. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments above are convincing, but waiting four days is easier. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is possible for a Wikipedia category to contain Commons images. (If this is not possible, then merge with or redirect to commons:category:vote symbols.) It is useful to have these symbols easily accessible via a table of contents or index of some sort, even though Wikipedia processes are not supposed to be votes. (The Norro style 1 icons and Norro style 2 icons are perfect for this purpose, and both of these categories are contained within commons:category:vote symbols.) Bwrs (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible, but it requires creating a file page for each image on Wikipedia. I understand your desire to keep these symbols accessible, but why should we duplicate the Commons categorisation scheme on Wikipedia? The symbols can still be accessed and are organised at Commons... Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:28, 5 December 2009 (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:Suspected hoax images

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Suspected hoax images to Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax images

Category:Suspected hoax articles to Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles

or

Propose merging Category:Suspected hoax articles and Category:Suspected hoax images to Category:Wikipedia suspected hoaxes

Nominator's rationale: Per category naming conventions, "[c]ategories used for Wikipedia administration [should be] prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon)" as needed for clarity. If the two categories are kept separate, then they need to be renamed to add "Wikipedia". "Suspected hoax images" is an unclear category title, since it could be confused with a category for articles about hoax images (such as art forgeries or fake photos); "suspected hoax articles", while less ambiguous, could still be confused with a category for articles about suspected hoaxes and should be renamed for consistency with its parents, Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues and Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. Another option would be two merge the two categories together (especially since the image category is empty at this time and probably much of the time). (Category creators not notified because: retired or indef-blocked.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse renaming to be consistent with policy. Don't think it makes sense to merge; we should keep separate categories for pages of different types. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UnitedStatesian to rename but not merge. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename only per UnitedStatesian. Articles and images are evaluated by different specialties, so should be kept separate for simplicity. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caution(?) Also, articles are added to this category by adding a template to the top of an article. I'm rubbish at templates, but if these are renamed, care needs to be taken not to break the templates. (And if I'm talking out of my arse because I don't know how templates work, ignore me.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. Both of these categories are template-populated, the templates being {{Hoax}} for the articles category and {{Image hoax}} for the images category, and renaming will require editing of the templates. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I feel that there should be one clearly named category that is used for hoax articles/images, rather than there be two ambiguously named categories that are both used for hoaxes. The "Different Types Theory" is, although reasonable, would create more work, and make it HARDER for hoaxes to be removed. If hoaxes are quickly removed, then there is less possibility of the story leaking out. I could, for the sake of example create an article about how North Korea had launched a nuclear missile aimed at Alaska and another aimed at Hawaii. This, if discovered, could lead to a nuclear war. I also propose that there be a Hoax task force on Wikipedia that monitors for hoaxes. Hamtechperson ^Repeater 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename only. The Piltdown Man skull is or was a "Suspected hoax article" in the sense of article=object. Prefixing with Wikpedia makes it clear that these are internal housekeeping categories relating to Wikipedia articles. We can tolerate the risk that having two separate categories provokes a war. Rhomb (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2009 (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:Settlements with fewer than ten residents

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorization by arbitrary inclusion criteria. Why is 10 the cut-off rather than 3 (since 3's a crowd), 12 (a biblical quorum), or 20 (a score of people)? I'm guessing it is because it is the one chosen by (the much older) List of places with fewer than ten residents. As stated explicitly in the guideline linked to above, having a list article is "a better way of representing this kind of information". This category is also not well-maintained (and it would presumably require constant updating as villages teetered between 9–11): right now only Canadian settlements are included, whereas the list includes many non-Canadian settlements. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Settlements where the number of residents is less than some arbitrarily-chosen number of your choice. Or better still, delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom as overcategorization and a case where a list is unambiguously a more superior way of organizing information. The distinction between an inhabited settlement and an uninhabited settlement is a qualitative, non-arbirtary, and significant one (which is why we have Category:Former settlements, including Category:Ghost towns); the distinction between a settlement with 9 residents and a settlement with 10 residents is a purely quantitative and trivial one. Also, categories tend to make no distinction between current and former status (e.g., if a person is a politician once, the he or she belongs in the Politicians category tree even if he or she later leaves office). Applying this same principle to this category would mean including any settlement which has had fewer than ten residents at any point in time; not applying the same principle to this category would mean creating an impossible maintenance task. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:OC#ARBITRARY: a classic case thereof. Occuli (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I even had a quick look if the number 10 is perhaps some government applied criterion, but don't think so. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. I usually find myself defending lists, AfD'd for removal,but it goes both ways. People have different ways of browsing, and browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a list, there should be a category. Ifthe re is a list for non-canda, but the category is not being used, it should be. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. There are several reasons to limit categories, one of which is that they clutter up articles in a way that lists don't. That's one of the reasons why there is a consistent practice at CFD of deleting categories with arbitrary inclusion criteria, per WP:OCAT#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 5 December 2009 (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.