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 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 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.
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 only22:36, 6 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 only09:22, 7 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 only07:06, 8 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 SatuSuro00:12, 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.
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 only21:55, 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]
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]
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 only16:46, 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.
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 - 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 only07:08, 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). - jc3722:57, 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]
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]
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.
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 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. SFB00:26, 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]
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. SFB11:48, 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)? - jc3721:42, 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.
