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:Delete. No characterization of what the relationship of the entities to health insurance marketplaces; not a "defining characteristic". As I pointed out on the category talk page, it seems to include contractors working on the web sites, contractors working on infrastructure, and health insurance providers. For at least one of the contractors, all we know is that it's on the US government's list of (45) healthcare.gov contractors. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete classic performer by performance category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete The defining characteristic for this category is poorly defined. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not categorize by specific government contracts that a company got.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2014 (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:Characters in The Lord of the Rings[edit]
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.
Support I propose that this gets closed ASAP and done. It would follow the style of the established categories and would fall under BOLD IMO. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (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:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment[edit]
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. Consensus is clear and the category is empty. While the RfC decided to keep the pages, there is no reason to keep empty categories as they serve no historical function. The fact that the parent category is tagged as historical may well be an error and when that is emptied there will be another discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - The category is empty and the article incubator is now defunct. I do not see any further pages added to this category. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Support. I think this may qualify for speedy delete since it's empty and not going to be filled again. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Unscint's idea of keeping and marking as historical is pointless... since category page histories don't keep any record of the pages that were added or removed from the category. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closure Incubation is current policy, and the WP:AI is subsumed at WP:Drafts. This category is covered by the recent consensus reached at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator. The RfC included the statements that the incubator's "pages will be marked historical" and "any editors who are currently interested in working with the Incubator can carry out the same functions using the Draft namespace". Looking at Category:Articles in the Article Incubator shows that the nominator has already marked the parent category historical.
While I have no immediate reason to think that the category is or will be used, hiding the brief edit history makes it harder for interested editors to understand the category.
The key to understanding this category is Template:Article Incubator. The code there shows that this category is populated by setting the "status" parameter as "=eval". This status is or was used to request an assessment that the article is ready to move back to mainspace. This is a controversial category, because there were times that an article with status=eval was nominated for deletion at MfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
clarification: I fully agree with consensus where it comes to marking the WP:AI page and its related sub-pages and templates as "historical"... I don't, however, see the point in marking the associated category pages as "historical". My view would be different if category pages kept a historical record of pages that are added and subtracted from the category, or if the category page included some sort of instructional text that would aid someone who is looking into the history of how WP:AI worked. But as it is, all you see here is a blank page... there is nothing on the category page that someone looking into the history of WP:AI would want to see. There is no point in keeping it and marking it as "historical". Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2014 (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:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for deletion[edit]
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. Consensus is clear and the category is empty. While the RfC decided to keep the pages, there is no reason to keep empty categories as they serve no historical function. The fact that the parent category is tagged as historical may well be an error and when that is emptied there will be another discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - The category is empty and the article incubator is now defunct. I do not foresee any further pages added to this category. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Procedural closure Incubation is current policy, and the WP:AI is subsumed at WP:Drafts. This category is covered by the recent consensus reached at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator. The RfC included the statements that the incubator's "pages will be marked historical" and "any editors who are currently interested in working with the Incubator can carry out the same functions using the Draft namespace". Looking at Category:Articles in the Article Incubator shows that the nominator has already marked the parent category historical.
While I have no immediate reason to think that the category is or will be used, hiding the brief edit history and turning the links red makes it harder for interested editors to understand the category.
The key to understanding this category is Template:Article Incubator. The code there shows that this category is populated by setting the "status" parameter as "=delete". Unscintillating (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand the rational for marking the WP:AI page and its related sub-pages and templates as "historical"... I don't, however, see the point in marking the associated category pages as "historical". My view would be different if category pages kept a historical record of pages that are added and subtracted from the category, or if the category page included some sort of instructional text that would aid someone who is looking into the history of how WP:AI worked. But as it is, all you see here is a blank page... there is nothing on the category page that someone looking into the history of WP:AI would want to see. There is no point in marking it as "historical". Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2014 (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:Delete. 1) Poorly named. The main article, permanent category, and template all address the religion as a whole: "Bábism". 2) Very undersized for a stub category. There are only 22 articles currently listed in the permanent category and all of its subcategories. Keep template, but upmerge to Category:Religion stubs. Delete category. Dawynn (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not large enough to justify a stub category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (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.
Strong oppose. These categories are very useful exactly because they are 'fine-grained'; the alternative 'disambig-class' WP categories would be less so. They cause no harm; leave them be, please. Thank you. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two project dab categories mentioned in the nom currently have about 20 pages each and would have about 30 pages each if dab pages from these reader-side categories were added; that's not many pages per category.
Lack of consistency causes (long term) maintenance of Wikipedia to be more complicated than it needs to be. E.g. the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries dab page is (currently) in topic categories, the Defence Intelligence Agency dab page isn't - why? Having topic-based categorization on both the dab page itself (reader-side) and on the talk page (editor-side) inevitably leads to cases like we had with physics where some editors were putting dab pages into a reader-side category and some editors were putting dab pages in a editor-side category; that's the sort of muddle that this clean-up of dab categorization is attempting to avoid. There are only a few of these non-template-driven reader-side dab categories (most created by one editor); it's not how most dabs are categorized. How are these categories useful (to readers or editors) ? DexDor (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WikiProject tagging already provides a way of tracking such categories, and since dab pages often cover a wide range of topics, this type of categorisation is a recipe for clutter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to standard WikiProject tagging. Tassedethe (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplication of Wikiproject tagging as well as the fact that these pages were never meant to be navigated in this manner. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2014 (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.
