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.
Surely such pair of categories should not exist. But what about phase boundary? There are various effects related to more than 1 phase at the same time, without assuming a transition of some matter from one phase to another. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly create such a category any time you want, but would it have many articles? Phase boundary doesn't have all that many articles linking to it. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nominator. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 13 January 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 to Category:1850–1859 Atlantic hurricane seasons. As only the 1859 category was tagged, it will be the only one merged as a result of this discussion. There appears, however, to be a consensus to merge underpopulated year categories to decade categories up to at least 1900, and possibly even 1950. I recommend that any follow-up nomination(s) be made in at least two parts, separating 1800–1899 and 1900–1949, in order to help clarify consensus and to limit the number of categories per nomination so that editors can check whether there may be a need to keep certain years or upmerge certain articles to appropriate 'xxxx disasters' categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Saw this in the emptied section, listed for speedy deletion, with a bunch of others that appear to have been emptied out of process. This, and the others, are part of rather long series. As you go back in time, the series becomes a little thin on content. But is that a reason to actually delete the existing categories? Just listing for discussion. I am not advocating for deletion by this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This particular category was recently created — there's no evidence it was ever actually populated, and was likely tagged per C1 after sitting for 4 days without any page being added after creation. If this is the case for all of the empty ones, then I fully support speedy deletion per C1. If they were in fact emptied out of process as opposed to never being populated in the first place, then we need to decide if these categories are worth repopulating. After clicking on a couple of the others, it appears there is just 1 page per category. If that's the case with the whole system, it seems very unnecessary to keep these categories. If it's likely that several pages or subcategories can be included, then they may have some value. VegaDark (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though this, and those other Atlantic hurricane season categories are empty, I believe they should be kept. Part of the reason they are empty is the fact that so few pages have been made for individual storms that far back. Also, data is sketchy, at best. More information needs to be cited so they can have real meaning.
Also, I would like to say that I am not advocating keeping them just because I made one, more, or all of them. The above paragraph is my honest opinion.
I'm to assume that this comment means they were in fact created and never populated, in which case WP:CSD#C1 applies. There's no good reason to keep these around empty. These are not the type of category to be exempt with the empty category template, so essentially you are arguing an application of IAR to keep these. These categories aren't special. There's no reason to treat these differently than the thousands of other categories I and others have deleted per C1. Just because so few pages have actually been created as to populate these is not a good reason to keep, as that argument could be made for every single empty category and C1 would become a useless criteria. If and when such pages are created, then the individual categories can be restored on a case by case basis. Until then, empty categories are confusing to readers and thus we delete them. VegaDark (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But that fact should not justify deletion of everything so that they can be placed in a decade grouping or even to justify by decade grouping of these. Decade groupings are generally not based on correct decades and don't cleanly match up with the century categories. If these by year categories are deleted or merged, it should be to century categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge all annual categories to decade categories; then delete and salt the annual ones -- This whole cat-tree has got completely out of control. We have a mass of categories each with a single article in (or at most half a dozen. One category per decade should be quite enough, at least until the WP era, when I expect we have an article on each tropical storm, whether it became a hurricane that reached land or not. These miniscule annual categories are a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete all underpopulated categories. I agree with VegaDark. If the categories are obviously underpopulated or are empty then WP:CSD#C1 applies. These categories do not appear to meit a special status. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all 1800-1899 "xxxx Atlantic hurricane season" categories to by-decade categories, a la those 1800 to 1849. Post 1900, by-year makes sense as there is sufficent data available for by-year (and the WP:SMALLCAT exemption applies), pre 1800, should be done by century. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge by decade before 1950 As suggested by Bushranger, the pre-1900 categories are mostly empty or only contain an article on the season (there was no separate hurricane service before then). Even between 1900 and 1950 they generally contain only an article on the season and one or two notable storms. Naming of storms started in 1950 and from that point on the categories are well-populated. I would note, by the way, that almost all data on pre-1900 storms comes from a single webpage. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty categories as serving no purpose. Do not delete non-empty categories until there is a discussion on how their deletion affects the Category:nnnn natural disasters set of parent categories or a definite minumum number of required articles has been agreed upon and documented in the category tree. Then the deletion actions must include upmerging articles to the 'nnnn national disaster' parents as well as all the other parents. The impact on parent categories has not been mentioned above. Hmains (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "season" articles do not belong in any "disasters" hierarchy since it is not a disaster to have a hurricane season. I don't know that I would put all individual hurricanes in disaster categories, since storms which never make landfall aren't disastrous, but be that as it may, since the storms are the disasters it makes more sense to put them directly in the disaster category. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice against recreation. There is no reason why in theory this category would not work. However since it has no contents, we might as well delete it for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still stand by my vote. The one article in this category does not work since it covers an entire decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by decade before 1950 per The Bushranger, Mangoe, et al. The fact that storm naming started in 1950 (see 1950 Atlantic hurricane season) makes this an obvious break point. - jc37 19:27, 27 January 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 delete per Category:Drake discussion below. There doesn't seem to be a desire for redirects, so I'm reverting the ones I modified after the last such discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Drake is ambiguous. This could easily be used to categorize songs about drakes. This is a recently created category redirect, and not a very good one at that, since it is overly ambiguous. Since there are many songs about dragons and male ducks, this is likely to easily wrongly contain content that is not related to Drake (entertainer). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a redirect, the proper venue for this nomination is WP:RFD. VegaDark (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a category redirect, not a hard redirect. CFD has handled category redirects in the past. Categories have special issues that are different from other pages, because categories categorize things. There are special instructions regarding such things at WP:CFD (such as to not create them), so this appears to be the proper place to list them. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments here. As for the merits of this redirect, I would say this is an extremely likely search term. 99.999% of all people who would ever type this in would be looking for Drizzy Drake songs, not songs about drakes, and the vast majority of our readership I would guess would not know to put "(entertainer)" in the search. VegaDark (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- The closing Admin should please also deal with the CFD discussion on January 7, to which this nom appears to be a follow up. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we have category disambiguation this category should not exist at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:17, 16 January 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 delete per Category:Drake discussion below. There doesn't seem to be a desire for a redirect, so I'm reverting the one I modified after the last such discussion. I am also deleting the redirect on Category:Drake concert tours.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Drake is ambiguous. This could easily be used to categorize albums about drakes. This is a recently created category redirect, and not a very good one at that, since it is overly ambiguous. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a redirect, the proper venue for this nomination is WP:RFD. VegaDark (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a category redirect, not a hard redirect. CFD has handled category redirects in the past. Categories have special issues that are different from other pages, because categories categorize things. There are special instructions regarding such things at WP:CFD (such as to not create them), so this appears to be the proper place to list them. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments here. As for the merits of this redirect, I would say this is an extremely likely search term. 99.999% of all people who would ever type this in would be looking for Drizzy Drake albums, not albums about drakes, and the vast majority of our readership I would guess would not know to put "(entertainer)" in the search. VegaDark (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The search would be 'Drake', which would get us to Drake, and thence wherever. I've never heard of category redirects being retained to assist people searching for categories. Occuli (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them retained for such purposes before, but I wouldn't necessarily object if Wikipedia is now getting rid of all similar categories as there are a couple categories I've had deleted that people simply turned in to redirects right afterward. I personally search for categories by typing "Category: x" though. VegaDark (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with VegaDark. Most people would search for Category:Drake not Category:Drake (entertainer). I've created the category Category:Drake. Category:Drake (entertainer) never existed. A bot deleted it without a discussion. DrizzyDrakeFan 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete and salt -- The closing Admin should please also deal with the CFD discussion on January 7, to which this nom appears to be a follow up. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I were to be looking for Drake songs, it would be for songs about Drakes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we have category disambiguation this category should not exist at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:17, 16 January 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:speedily delete per previous discussion on this matter. It could become a disambiguation category if there is another category that could be called "Drake", but there is no need for a soft redirect after the previous CFD result.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Drake is not about Drake (entertainer), it is a disambiugation page; so this category is excessively ambiguous. It's newly created, and as a redirect, to make it even worse. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a redirect, the proper venue for this nomination is WP:RFD. VegaDark (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a category redirect, not a hard redirect. CFD has handled category redirects in the past. Categories have special issues that are different from other pages, because categories categorize things. There are special instructions regarding such things at WP:CFD (such as to not create them), so this appears to be the proper place to list them. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments here. As for the merits of this redirect, I would say this is unlike the others as Drake has many meanings as evidenced by the disambiguation page. With the addition of "songs" and "albums" above I think it's pretty clear people would be searching for the entertainer, but for this it isn't so clear, so I'd support either deleting this or better yet converting this to a category disambiguation page. VegaDark (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it's actually a soft redirect, not a category redirect. {{Cat redirect}} would be better. I don't see much point in having any sort of redirect myself as presumably all Drake (entertainer) material is already categorised. Occuli (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- The closing Admin should please also deal with the CFD discussion on January 7, to which this nom appears to be a follow up. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and saltSir Francis Drake is without question the person most likely to be refered to in a single mention of "Drake did x". A male duck is a drake. In many situations dragons are refered to as drakes. There is absolutely no reason at all to link this category the way it is. If I go to category Drake, I will want to see articles about the ships he burned and battles he won.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:16, 16 January 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Make unambiguous. The insufficiently specific title appears to be attracting articles which don't belong. Pnm (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per nominator ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 13 January 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.
