< October 13 October 15 >

October 14

Order of the Netherlands Lion (relisting)

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 Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, keep others. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a relisting. The categories were initially deleted in this CFD. The deletion of these specific categories was reviewed at DRV here with a result of "relist". This is the relisting. The initial nomination was for deletion, so this is re-suggested here, but all suggestions and comments are welcome. I am neutral and am not advocating for deletion or retention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The harm of categorizing awards for monarchs and visiting officials is on display at the bottom of this article. (Clarification: this comment only applies to the Grand Masters subcategory.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: My comments only apply to the Grand Masters subcategory which is automatically given to the ruling king or queen and no one else, such as academics. We may still disagree, but hopefully that context makes my viewpoint more clear. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point for that specific category, but I don't think it makes sense to have categories for the other members of the order but then deliberately exclude part of the order from those categories, only because the people in that part have too many other ex officio categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be: does the benefit of these categories (providing an alternative navigational pathway to going via the article containing the list of recipients) outweigh the costs (category clutter, editor time spent adding/maintaining the categories, watchlist noise etc)? IMO, it doesn't.
The existence of these categories means that some editors add people to the category and other editors add people to the article that contains a list of recipients - thus Wikipedia is creating 2 separate (incomplete) lists. It would be more efficient to just to have one list (the list article) which can be watchlisted, checked to see that information is cited etc.
We should remember that we are writing an encyclopedia (i.e. articles containing facts for people to read) - categories are merely a means to navigate between articles (about similar topics). An article does not need a long list of categories that duplicates nearly every fact in the article (in an uncited, unstructured pile). DexDor (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, this is essentially an argument against almost all categorisation and this is not the place to have that debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of deleting all/most award recipients categories - and any other categories for people that are not either reason for notability or standard biographical characteristics (e.g. nationality) (plus yob/yod/blp which are more for Wp administration than for reader navigation). Thus, I'm likely to !vote delete for any award recipients categories that are brought to CFD. That the same arguments would apply to other categories is not a good reason to not use them in the discussion about these particular categories.
If having an award is an important characteristic of a person then that should be in the text of their article (where it can be cited, linked to the article/list about the award and can include information about the year of the award, if it was awarded jointly with someone else etc) - repeating the list of awards at the bottom of the article provides little/no benefit to readers/editors. DexDor (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And categorising by their year of birth or death does? That's my point about your argument essentially being one against almost all categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re year of birth (yob) etc - please read the 1st sentence of my previous post. The yob/yod/blp category tags cause little category clutter, cause little watchlist noise (typically they're added when the article is created and altered after the person's death), don't often get added to articles inappropriately - i.e. they have little cost. DexDor (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...repeating the list of awards at the bottom of the article provides little/no benefit to readers/editors"; debatable, but it does make the bio more complete - which should be the point. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "it does make the bio more complete"? Either the information about the award being received is already in the article (where it can be cited, dated and contain any relevant info such as "awarded posthumously") or it is not already in the article (in which case the article certainly shouldn't be in the category). DexDor (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (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:Backyard Brawl

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; upmerge contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in this category pbp 23:17, 14 October 2015 (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.

14th-16th century natural disasters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:1303 natural disasters to Category:1303 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1304 natural disasters to Category:1304 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1343 natural disasters to Category:1343 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1344 natural disasters to Category:1344 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1362 natural disasters to Category:1362 disasters
rest of 14th-16th century natural disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1375 natural disasters to Category:1375 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1384 natural disasters to Category:1384 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1390 natural disasters to Category:1390 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1391 natural disasters to Category:1391 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1410 natural disasters to Category:1410 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1416 natural disasters to Category:1416 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1441 natural disasters to Category:1441 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1448 natural disasters to Category:1448 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1452 natural disasters to Category:1452 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1453 natural disasters to Category:1453 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1494 natural disasters to Category:1494 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1509 natural disasters to Category:1509 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1530 natural disasters to Category:1530 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1531 natural disasters to Category:1531 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1551 natural disasters to Category:1551 disasters and Category:16th-century natural disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1556 natural disasters to Category:1556 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1570 natural disasters to Category:1570 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1575 natural disasters to Category:1575 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1580 natural disasters to Category:1580 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1590 natural disasters to Category:1590 disasters
  • Propose merging Category:1595 natural disasters to Category:1595 disasters
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one (or occasionally two) articles per category, way too few natural disasters in these centuries to justify separate year categories. In most cases there is no double merge needed to Category:14th-century natural disasters etc. because the articles are already in a century floods or earthquakes subcategory of the natural disasters century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2015 (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:Contemporary German history

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: withdrawn, without prejudice to a future re-nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split and merge, since 1945 there have been two entirely periods of German history, first the Cold War period with East and West Germany, then the reunified period since 1990. It does not really make sense to have a common parent category for these two periods that have so little in common. Proposal is to merge most of the nominated category to Category:20th century in Germany by period except, of course, subcategory Category:21st century in Germany of which the nominated parent should simply be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category series such as Contemporary history are based on the assumption that Contemporary history is an internally coherent part of history. That is clearly not the case here. By the way, it may also not be the case in other countries, I haven't actually looked at that yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Marcocapelle, it's not based on an assumption of internal coherence, which appears to be your own personal interpretation. The head article contemporary history suggest the simplest definition as being "within living memory", and none of the suggest definitions imposes any requirement for internal coherence.
    In any case there are several ways of looking at history, and there's no logical or historiographical flaw in saying that the topic of "German history since 1945" is an internally coherent topic which can be sub-divided into pre- and post-1990 eras. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 16 October 2015 (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:Sportspeople from Utrecht

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, though the entire Category:Utrecht (city) tree could be considered in the future, since the article about the city is at Utrecht and is the primary meaning of that name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: correct name. Wwikix (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2015 (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:Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry

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; upmerge contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three pages in this category, one of which is a redirect to one of the remaining two. pbp 16:16, 14 October 2015 (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:Metro Manila city and municipal councillors

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. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Philippine English, "councilor" is spelled with a single "L". –HTD 16:05, 14 October 2015 (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:Ben Affleck

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:EPONCAT. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:SMALLCAT I don't find companies that he's one partner in to be defined by him and WP:SEPARATE rules out mixing family members into a non-biography category. That leaves only 3 articles and my cutoff is 5. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2015 (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:AFC U-12 Championship

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: administrative close: category was speedily deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable youth football JMHamo (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2015 (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.

Millennia in West Germany

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Millennia in West Germany
  • Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in West Germany
  • Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in West Germany‎
Nominator's rationale: delete, no point in subdividing a country by millennia categories while it has existed for less than a century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2015 (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