< December 3 December 5 >

December 4

Category:Articles in the Article Incubator

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. I think it's fair to say that this was a discussion that was pretty "in the weeds" of details, and it's kind of amazing that we had four editors participate. The fact that there was only one editor that objected, combined with the result here, in part suggests to me that there is a rough consensus for deletion. (However, this is not to suggest that all I did was "!vote count" in closing this discussion. I found the arguments advanced in favour of deletion far more convincing and persuasive.) For what it's worth, I have never seen a consensus anywhere that has resulted in empty categories no longer in use being retained for historical purposes. In this regard, categories seem not to be treated the same way as some other historical content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace

And also Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing

Nominator's rationale: I understand why the incubator itself was marked historical as opposed to just being deleted, it was at least a semi-active project for a good long time, but preserving this empty category for "historical reference" seems rather pointless. I suppose it's one subcategory, also empty should go with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the issue under discussion, not the person initiating the discussion. The category was deprecated when the incubator was closed. It is not in use and is empty. This is just some overdue housekeeping. If the community would prefer to keep these two empty categories for some reason that's fine too. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So back to the discussion, the question of the missing articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the discussion we're having, the articles aren't missing at all, they just had the category removed from them when the incubator was closed a few years ago. What we're discussing is whether to keep these two empty categories. Normally this could just be speedy deleted, but because they were marked as historical I brought them here instead, but I can see no historical purpose in looking at an essentially blank page that used to be used to categorize a process we no longer use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace wouldn't have been suddenly depopulated when the AI was marked historical.  The number of articles in that category should only have increased with time.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The available evidence suggests you are incorrect and that it was completely taken out of use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an acknowledgment that you are not prepared to discuss the category. 

Moving on to the first category, one that we can agree is or should be empty, have you checked to see where the category is being used?  This might be why we retain the category, because without the category, reading the historical templates or their edit history is more difficult.  Thus the marking "historical" on the category.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mangoe, The "precedent" you've cited shows the opposite of your assertion, it shows that the nominator of that discussion is the one who marked this category as historical.  Two different cases.  So are you going to pivot to a new reason to delete, or keep the same logic and switch your !vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 2nd category, I posted Template:Incu-grad on a couple of articles and they populate Category:Article Incubator graduates.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, that makes the other one seem entirely superfluous, which is probably the actual reason why it is empty, not the one I thought. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has taken us closer to deletion. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Please answer the question.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you aren't making any argument that either (a) this categories ought to be nonempty now, or (b) ongoing work is going to occasionally populate them in the future, no, I'm not going to change my vote, and the precedent for deleting these categories does apply. Spell out what these "missing articles" are and make some actual argument for that, and at least leave off the low-grade invective. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invective?  Our article on that word states, "Invective (noun), from Middle English invectif, or Old French and Late Latin invectus, is an abusive, reproachful or venomous language used to express blame or censure; also, a rude expression or discourse intended to offend or hurt. Vituperation, or deeply seated ill will, vitriol."  My last previous post to you concerned a lighthouse article that I wrote, in response to a comment you made about lighthouse articles.  So, sorry that you think this has something to do with invective, and I have no idea what you are talking about.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying why you think deletion applies.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your previous argument was "delete as per precedent".  The "precedent" was a previous discussion by an editor who feels that the main category (Articles in the Article Incubator) being discussed here should be not deleted but marked historical.  Since you consider this person to be an authority, I have found it illogical that you would cite him for doing the opposite of what he believes.  As for the argument concerning historical categories, I fail to see any case for deleting empty historical categories.  This defeats the purpose of marking them historical.  Category:Articles in the Article Incubator was the centerpiece of the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference you've cited states, "Other pages are retained for historical reference and are marked as such." 

    If you look at the logic design of Template:Historical, you will see that there is different text provided for policies and guidelines, and that the logic identifies this Category as a "page", not a policy or guideline.

    The idea goes against common sense, since the loss of the instructions on this Category, and also the edit history for the Category, are central to the structure and history of the Article Incubator. 

    This category is mentioned at the very top of WP:AI. 

    For amplification of the meaning of "historical reference", Wikipedia:Project namespace#Historical pages states,

===Historical pages===

A historical page...is one which is no longer in use...and is kept as a record of past Wikipedia events that have a noteworthy value in being maintained as happened.

Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we keep historical pages is so we can point at them and say "we tried this, and eventually decided it didn't work out" not a a memorial. The histories of all three categories are extremely brief and do not provide some critical insight into the workings of the incubator. What 'historical value" is there in keeping an essentially blank page? (Hint:none) You seem to be arguing from an emotional place about something that really is just simple housekeeping. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, editor's contributions are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia, so deleting them is not "just simple housekeeping".  Their essential value is why we have the policy WP:PRESERVE, whose nutshell states, "Preserve the value that others add..."  We also get from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, with emphasis in the original, "When in doubt, don't delete."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Category:Articles in the Article Incubator has four paragraphs of instruction, and an edit history with eleven edits, so it is not an "essentially blank page".  (2) The only thing we know about the second category, Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace, is that the close of the RfC directed that the pages of the article incubator "will be marked historical".  (3) Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing was redirected with Revision as of 2010-11-24T11:34:09.  Rationalizing that this redirect page is an "essentially blank page" has no weight, as this description is normal for a redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator Shortcuts

Note that damage to the encyclopedia can be seen in other red links in this Infobox.  This problem was not discussed for the part of the problem created at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 13. 

To repeat part of my statement from there, "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'." 

Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merriam Webster defines "damage" as "something that causes loss or pain".  I think we can skip "pain", leaving "something that causes loss".  An empty category has information, including text instructions, that is not present if the page is missing, thus information is lost when the page is deleted.  A deleted redirected category confounds the reader because there is no immediate way to identify the target of the redirect, or that the category was not populated.  As with all of the categories listed here, the edit history is lost.  When information is lost, the historical concept is damaged. 

    Is there a benefit to damaging the encyclopedia in this way?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a situation of something "that no longer serves a purpose", as these pages have an historical purpose. 

    As for arguing that if these pages can't be deleted, nothing ever can, that seems to be accurate, as why would there ever be a case to delete historical pages?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In part, sure; but there is another point here that this is a discussion of the difference between empty log pages and missing (deleted) log pages.  Log pages that are empty and categories that are empty provide information that does not exist if the page does not exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There are no "missing" pages here and these increasingly desperate, increasingly ridiculous arguments are just cluttering up this discusion. You really, really, really want these empty unused categories kept, no matter what. We get it, and so will the closing admin, you can stop coming up with new, increasingly odd reasons for that any time now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that preserving history and following our policies including WP:PRESERVE, and accepting the community consensus to mark the pages of the incubator "historical", is "nonsense".  Policies are widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument I presented above did not say that there were " 'missing' pages here"...rather the "missing" pages was a reference to the discussion about log pages.  However, perhaps the analogy applies in that the evidence is that the damage identified indicates that pages of the incubator are missing due to previous deletions.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PRESERVE is about article content, it has nothing whatsoever to do with empty categories from project space. You are letting your desire to always get in the last word cloud your reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the theory that WP:PRESERVE only applies to article content, I couldn't verify the hypothesis, nor has the above comment provided evidence to support the hypothesis.  The first sentence of the policy states:

Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help.

That text in the first word wikilinks the word "Wikipedia" to the page Wikipedia:About.  The nutshell there begins:
This is a general introduction for visitors to Wikipedia. The project also has an encyclopedia article about itself, Wikipedia, and some introductions for aspiring contributors. . .
Shortcuts
What we see in those two quotes is that WP:PRESERVE applies to "Wikipedia", and "Wikipedia" is identified as a project. 

This is, of course, secondary to whether or not this is directly applicable to the CFD, as WP:PRESERVE was cited as part of a refutation to the argument that historical pages can be deleted for "just simple housekeeping", and cited to show the general desire of the community to preserve editor's contributions.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what you see if you actually read PRESERVE past the very first sentence is literally the entire thing is about article content and does not mention categories or project space, or even "pages" while repeatedly using the term "article". So, yeah, my supporting argument was based on actually reading and understanding it, not just cherry picking the first sentence and juming to an unwarranted conclusion. I don't know why I bother talking to you though as I'm sure you'll jst switch gears again and go grasping for straws somewhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (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:Political party flagbearers (Ghana)

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Political party flagbearers (Ghana) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:2016 political party flagbearers (Ghana)
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is defining and no broader categorization tree for this seem to exist. Brandmeistertalk 21:02, 4 December 2016 (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:1250 in Egypt

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 and repopulate. Adding new contents to a category during a CfD discussion is rarely disruptive, as it may demonstrate the scope (whether substantial or negligible) for the category to be useful. Removing contents is however considered disruptive, unless the categorisation was objectively wrong, in which case this should be explained in the edit summary. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:1250 in Egypt to Category:1250 in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
  • Propose merging Category:Years of the 13th century in Egypt to Category:Years of the 13th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
  • Propose merging Category:13th century in Egypt to Category:13th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
  • Propose renaming Category:13th-century Egyptian people to Category:13th-century people of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
Nominator's rationale: An obvious case of anachronistic doublicity. We already have a profound Mamluk Sultanate tree for that period. GreyShark (dibra) 07:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have preference on this in general, but we should deal with the article name later on, as a more complex issue.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have just added plenty of articles to Category:13th-century Egyptian people in purpose to back your claim. This is clearly disruptive.GreyShark (dibra) 06:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is already Category:People of the Ayyubid Sultanate.GreyShark (dibra) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is category:Medieval Egypt for addressing the current entity.GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 25 December 2016 (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.

Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata

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 the first three to the corresponding Viceroyalty of Peru categories, and to a new Category:Governorate of the Río de la Plata. Keep the fourth one. – Fayenatic London 09:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata did not exist until 1776, so it should really be referred to as the Governorate of the Río de la Plata before this date, when it was a subdivision of the Viceroyalty of Peru. See Governorate of the Río de la Plata. If we want to get really nitpicky, there's also a time where it's "New Andalusia" and another time period where both the Río de la Plata and Paraguay were under one governorship, but I think it's clear enough that this category should exclude Paraguay activities. SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support also adding Category:Governorate of the Río de la Plata per Marcocapelle.GreyShark (dibra) 07:42, 25 December 2016 (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.
More