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:Spedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2012 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It is not an Audrey Hepburn album. It is the soundtrack of a film in which Audrey Hepburn stared and sang. BIG difference. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album is credited to her and she's a performer on it. It's a collaborative album with several other artists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Audrey Hepburn -- As noted in a spearate nom. The actress's category is under-populated. As she was an actress not a singer, this will ever remain a miniscule category if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as there is now a legitimate member. Oculi (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole method of attributing albums here is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:OC#SMALL exception. Though I agree that funny face shouldn't be in there. If not kept, Upmerge. - jc37 23:02, 8 April 2012 (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.
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. No support for the proposal to delete, and clear grounds to speedy close since the same proposal was rejected in a CfD only a week previously. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a {{trout}} for the nominator - This was just discussed, and closed with a unanimous Keep, in a CfD started by the same nominator that closed less than a week ago. (and while the categories may have many articles that are in both, they don't necessary overlap. And a Wilderness area does have a clearly defined criterion.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is largely an overlap and in this instance there is no defining characteristic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The defining characteristic is that they are Wilderness Areas, defined as such. Protected area =/= Wilderness area. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) classifies wilderness at two levels, Ia (Strict Nature Preserves) and Ib (Wilderness areas) (emphasis added). - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what relationship does that have to the category in question? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes the scope of the category - the contents are, presumably, areas that are Wilderness areas (ICUN Type Ib) as opposed to Protected areas (which could be protected by any number of agencies, and not all wilderness areas are protected). And regardless of scope this was still renominated less than a week after a unanimous-keep close. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the category needs to be emptied out, and either refilled with ICUN Type Ib areas or C1'd. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or deleted because there are no suitable pages for it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I believe the nomination should be closed as a speedy keep for the technical reason mentioned above, and a search done to be determined if it can be properly populated. If not, then it can be emptied through normal editing like any other misapplied category, and C1'd. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – nothing has changed in the intervening week or so since this was last discussed. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep retreating to protected areas is somewhat problematic - the defining has been done at Tasmanian state, Australian federal and international level SatuSuro 00:12, 7 April 2012 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, we do not categorise ships by year of sinking; they go in the relevant 'maritime incidents in XXXX' category, which I am thus proposing this for upmerge to; discussion regarding if a Category:Ships by year of sinking category tree is viable would, of course, also be welcome! The BushrangerOne ping only 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, either to merging as suggested or to the other suggestion of populating a new category for ships by year of sinking. I do like categories, but I suppose it's possible to become too fine-grained so that a category has few members. I'll happily endorse whatever the majority of Wikipedians think is best. — Objectivesea (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge this (and any similar categories if they exist) to the relevant maritime incidents in (year) category. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having a category for ships sunk as a result of enemy action seems a no brainer. It would fit in neatly to existing military categories. Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But just to enemy action? Or sunk period? Do ships that are later salvaged count? - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of military action during a conflict - Ships sunk and salvaged answers itself. They were sunk. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about those that sank not as a result of military action? How are they less defined by being sunk? (I like the idea, actually, just believe that if we're going to have "Ships sunk in X" categories, they need to cover all ships sunk in X.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in principal defining a ship as sunk is easy. I am not sure it is worth having this category with only 2 entries, but the name of the category is doable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2012 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category gathering together a random collection of things vaguely connected with E Taylor Oculi (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contents are adequately covered by the article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Useful as gather number of articles split off from main and other things named after or closely associated with subject.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough articles to warrant a category. Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a useful way of drawing together material on a significant actress. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What-links-here is a better way and makes no claim of being defining. What are the inclusion criteria of Category:Elizabeth Taylor? Why not include all the films she was in? Oculi (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ITSUSEFUL is not necessarily a reason to keep. A better way of "drawing together material" is to have the "See Also" section of the article have the appropriate links, or, even better, have them worked into the actual text of the article. We don't need a category that says "this movie star owned this diamond, so the diamond's article is categorised by the movie star". - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to little common grounds for categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though I am somewhat on-the-fence about categorising the gems, I think that one could argue "defining" for them (though the pearl has others, of course). - jc37 22:57, 8 April 2012 (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.
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: Eponymous categories are discouraged and this only has two articles and one subcategory (itself with one article.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was poorly populated but it now contains five articles and a subcategory. That's sufficient as far as I'm concerned. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contents are adequately covered by the article itself and the subcat cat be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough articles to justify the category. Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a useful way of drawing together material on a significant actress. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I gave in the Elizabeth Taylor category discussion above, except with "diamonds" replaced with "dresses". - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - but prune out the husbands, per the nom directly below. - jc37 22:57, 8 April 2012 (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.
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: Limited possibilities for additions; not a defining characteristic of the category members; for those interested, names are readily available in the infobox at Elizabeth Taylor. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it was also deleted unanimously in an earlier cfd and is explicitly singled-out in WP:OC#SMALL. Oculi (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2012 (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.
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. Merging to a decades category seems fine, but does not yet have enough support in this nomination. The article is French Upper Volta, so that's the name I'm using.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename Burkina Faso did not exist in 1957. It was still a French colony and it makes more sense to use a category name which reflects that. (Note for instance that the only article currently in the category is Upper Volta territorial assembly election, 1957) Pichpich (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:1950s in Upper Volta, which would also be able to contain Upper Volta constitutional referendum, 1959 (whose annual category has not yet been created). WP has far too little content on this colonial polity, even to think of having annual categories. These annual categories are a menace, and need to be merged, as we did for hurricane categories some months ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:1957 in Upper Volta since Upper Volta does not change in boundaries with the end of colonizalism there is no reason to emphasize the level of foriegn dominance in the year in question. Anyway, no one ever called it "French Upper Volta" that is an ahistorical name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not say the article was misnamed. French Upper Volta is so named because it is an article on Upper Volta when it was a French colony. However, since Category:1951 in Upper Volta is clearly limited to Upper Volta in that year, we do not need to distinguish what specific historic phase in Upper Volta was existing then because it is obvious from the year included in the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the other hand to apply the Burkina Faso name a quarter century before it was first used is just not justifiable. Whever possible we should use the name of the place during the year the year category involves. Some people are going to try and dig up some extreme examples. If the actual name and political boundaries are matters of dispute that is one thing, but there was not a "this is Burkina Faso" movement in Upper Volta. Whether the category should be Category:1975 in Rhodesia or Category:1975 in Zimbabwe is another matter, but blind presentism is not the answer with by year categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is possible for something to be "in" and not "of," and an event that took place at certain geographic coordinates that fall inside the current boundaries of what is now Burkina Faso still took place "in Burkino Faso." Where did the Battle of Lexington take place? Near Lexington, Massachusetts. And where is that? In the United States of course, even though the entity known as the United States did not surface until later. I think any other path will prove to be unsustainable. We are rife with anachronisms already like Category:Kentucky colonial people or Category:Maine in the American Revolution.- choster (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So choster by your logic would we put actions of the Mexican revolution fought in what is today Texas in Category:1812 in the United States? I somehow do not see this as a doable accomadation to the realities of the past. Of maybe we could put various activities in Haifa in 1832 in Category:1832 in Israel. This is not a good plan. We need to deal with historical realities at some point. Personally I think we should upmerge the Maine category to the related Massachusetts category, but on the other hand there was a distinct District of Maine, and a distinct area of Kentucky. What we should not have is Category:West Virginia in the American Revolution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since we have such an unjustified category I put it up for merger. Kentucky and Maine were terms used during the revolution and at least the former was pretty close to the modern sense, while I doubt we could find anyone who could be disputed as being of Maine. West Virginia was not used as a political division, people from Wheeling were clearly Virignians, except maybe to some Philadelphia men, but the latter would desigate them as Pennsylvanias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2012 (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.
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:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2012 (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.
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:This is not a deletion nomination, rather a discussion over these categories' visibility. I suggest that all the stub-sorting categories be made hidden categories (rather than true content ones) on the grounds that the purpose and structure of these categories is technical/for in-wiki administrative processes only. The statements at WP:HIDDENCAT do not conform to usual Wikipedia categorisation procedures and no rationale is given for not hiding these unquestionably administrative categories. SFB 00:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close I think this is supposed to be discussed at WP:SFD. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out a cleanup issue while this discussion is open. I find sometimes that some people have either manually added or used HotCat to add stub categories directly instead of using the stub-type templates. Will making them hidden categories prevent them coming up on HotCat? (and can some bot be implemented to replace direct categorization with stub templates?) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall seeing a list at one point of articles with a stub category in the text. These would be cases where the category was not added by a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hide per nom, these are not of use for navigation. Tim! (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hiding These are supposed to be visible - there are editors who look for stubs in a particular topic area, and do what they can to improve them. We should not discourage one of the primary purposes of Wikipedia: to build an encyclopedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden categories remain visible to editors. This nomination suggests that these should not be visible to readers. SFB 11:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're only visible to editors who have Preferences → Appearance → Show hidden categories set, which is not the default. Also, virtually all editors start off as readers. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed WT:SFD as mentioned above and also WT:WSS who have a direct interest in these categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet - My initial reaction was that these of course should be hidden as project-related categories. But User:Redrose64 makes a good point that these could be of pretty universal use to our editors. Things involving stubs have always been pretty typical in being specific exceptions to general rules here. So I'm not sure. I'll wait for more discussion on this. Particularly: How and in what ways would keeping these visible by default be helpful to our readers and editors (especially newish editors)? - jc37 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both here and during previous attempts at changing the visibility of stubs the argument of recruiting editors is put forward. My feeling is that this is a tenuous and spurious argument, and without evidence we have to rely on community consensus rather than data. Does anyone k1now of data that links the rise in readership (or the rise in editor numbers) with a reduction in stub numbers? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Although I agree they are administration categories and hence would be hidden, hiding them seems strange when the stub box itself is far more noticable, especially to readers less familiar with wikipedia. What exactly is the goal here? Navigationally, the category links are often the only obvious way to get to a list of similar articles needing work. I don't think assuming interested editors would happen to have hidden categories visible is reasonable. I think we should look into moving the links to stub categories into the stub boxes themselves, and only then consider hiding them from the cat list. This might be tricky to do especially for those with multiple categories, but it should be possible. --Qetuth (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like when I am looking at a category to see whether or not it has a stub category as a subcategory. Alan Liefting seems to imply that that would change under this proposal. I also agree with Redrose64 that more work will be done on making stubs into articles, and on better stub sorting, if the categories are visible without changing the default viewing preference. I do agree that they are administrative, so are Template:Citation needed tags. Some things are worth living with. --Bejnar (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that the stub categories are well integrated into the general category structure, it does not make sense to undo that work. It could be useful to navigate from the stub category to the relevant content category, and vice-versa. What should be done is to improve the Wikipedia engine so that it respects hidden category status when displaying categories. Hidden status is treated inconsistently - on an article, they are hidden unless user preference says otherwise. On a category list they are displayed no matter what. To work around this we have to maintain two (or more) parallel (and therefore inconsistent) category structures. It would make more sense to allow hidden categories to be hidden on the category view as well as the article view.
As far as display of the stub category on the page (one aspect of being hidden), I have no particular preference. As far as removing stub categories from the article hierarchy (another aspect of being hidden) - oppose. Zodon (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2012 (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.
