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 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]
Delete Grand Masters/Neutral on Others Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT. The Grand Master title is automatically given to the king or queen of the Netherlands per the article. These people are notable for being monarchs, not for the award they automatically receive as a result so Category:Dutch monarchs is the more defining category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There is no harm in a little redundancy. We're not paper. There may be relatively little benefit, but there;s no harm. What does harm to encycopedia is trying to delete these cateogries against opposition. When something I think a little too minor to cover is being strongly defended, I move on. And this isn't even an article, where there can be an argument about diluting importance--it's just a possibly excess navigational device. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 15 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]
Keep. Especially the non-Grand Masters. Not paper. Manxruler (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RevelationDirect's reliance on OCAWARD as a rationale, without additional reasoning, is bogus: OCAWARD does not say that we should not have award categories, but rather only that we should do with them what we do with every other category: ask whether they are defining. OVERLAPCAT seems even less helpful: what is the category that overlaps with these ones? Anyway, to put forward a positive case rather than just shooting down someone else's bad argument: In this case, the award's focus (in modern times) on selecting the top Dutch scientists and artists, the fact that institutions whose employees receive it see it as something worth putting out press releases for [1][2][3], and in the examples I checked the academics who receive it include it in their major honors on their brief summary bios or cvs, all suggest to me that it is indeed defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 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]
Keep. With the exception of the Grand Master title, the other titles are -not- given to "monarchs and visiting officials", but to regular people for significant contributions to society. Categorizing them is a useful navigational tool. I have no objection to the removal of the Grand Master category (which, by its definition, will have very few entries anyway), but others definately should stay. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, including the Grand Master category. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Honours like these are significant things, both for their recipients and for the countries that grant them. Any claim otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of honours systems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of these awards defines their recipients - they were all famous for other achievements before receiving them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, they obviously are defining (whatever exactly that may mean - it's a word that's trotted out a lot without a lot of explanation). Second, you could say that about many other categories, many of them far less significant than this (e.g. the year that people died - if they weren't already notable they generally wouldn't have an article, so why is the year they died worth categorising? Or even the year they were born? Where they come from? Where they were educated? So what? None of it makes them notable!). Yes, I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but why single out honours for this dislike? You could apply this reasoning with a little thought to pretty much any category. Arguments like this seem to be essentially arguments against categorisation, period. Or at least against any categorisation that isn't directly connected with the single specific post, occupation or occurrence that makes the individual notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that many of the biography categories are a mess, especially the death ones. There's also a major problem that categories like Category:English chemists are useful for many biographies but then someone tacks that to the bottom of the Margaret Thatcher article (technically true but ridiculous). But, for the King Willem-Alexander article, the problem is award categories, including the Grand Master one in this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The awards are certainly defining, whatever that means. StAnselm (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all People should be categorized for the things they did, the things that made them notable, not for awards recieved. The fact that we have some articles in over 50 awards categories shows we need to prune out lots and lots of awards categories. No reason to keep these. In fact it would probably be best to delete ALL awards categories and recreate a much more limited few on a case by case basis. The case by case deletion is not working.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but Grand Masters, unclear on that one. If Grand Masters is basically only for the current monarch (which the article implies), it's redundant and not useful. But it completes the set. Otherwise it seems a notable award and I can certainly see someone taking advantage of the cat existing. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all due to the new consensus that all categories for national honours should be kept. Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but Grand Masters -- The Grand masters are Dutch monarchs, presumably in that capacity. However the rest appear to cases of a country honouring its own citizens. This differs from diplomatic honours given by a country to foreign potentates, which are not an independent indication of notability. We allow awards categories for "major awards": this is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The purpose of (non-administrative) categories is to group together articles about similar topics (which for people mainly means categorizing by what they are notable for) - not to create a database of which people have which awards (WikiData can do that). I've looked at a sample of the articles in these categories and in each case the lead explained what the person was notable for (politician, scientist etc) without mentioning the award. Where the award was mentioned it was usually in a paragraph/list of awards. This categorization has gone so far that it's being applied to people whose article doesn't even mention the award concerned (e.g. [4]) - that's going beyond WP:DNWAUC.
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]
Keep all, there should be an in principle consensus about when and how to categorise award recipients, not this "salami slicing"; picking an area, slipping through an inadequately publicised deletion then claiming a consensus. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:48, 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.
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]
Delete Lacks sufficient contents to justify category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge --We ought not to have more articles on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 18 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.
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: 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]
Upmerge too few articles to justify such fine splitting at this time. If we get more articles per year in the future we can revist the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom & above. Neutralitytalk 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom -- We should not merge to a parent where the article is in one of its children. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 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.
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]
Keep -- 1945 was a major turning point in German history. The merge proposal is flawed since 21st century cannot be a subcategory of 20th C. 1999 (or 2000) is a very insignificant date. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Broader Discussion of Category:Contemporary history by country. There doesn't seem to be a consensus that "contemporary" means in the current lifespan in the category space, which is what the contemporary history main article says. Slovakia goes back to 1993, Germany 1945, Iraq 1958 and I don't think variations in life expectancies account for that. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per argument of RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire contemporary history category tree is a mess and could do with an overhaul if not deletion (in practice it'd probably mostly be upmerges). For example, an article "History of Fooland" belongs in this category - until someone splits off "History of Fooland since <year>" to a sub-article when (based on what's currently in these categories) the original article no longer belongs in the contemporary category. An article such as "Fooland in the 2010s" presumably would belong in the contemporary category, but only until 2020 ... Does Category:History of Venice after 1797 (and its subcats/articles) really belong in a contemporary category? DexDor(talk) 21:05, 21 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.
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]
Support as C2C. It is actually very strange that the parent Category:Sportspeople from Utrecht (province) is empty except for the city subcat while the city contains less than half of the province's inhabitants. But in a sample that I've checked all people in this category were indeed from the city of Utrecht. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For disambiguation purposes. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 23 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.
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[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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're referred to as "council members" in the Philippines. Presumably the term "council members" should be the gender-neutral term for "councilman"/"councilwoman", as I don't think "council members" is even used in the U.S. Of course "councillor"/"councilor" should had been a lot better, but I'm guessing that term (either spelling) isn't that popular either. –HTD 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I randomly looked at some articles. And while they do start off with "This guy is a member of the Foo Council", the references tell another story. For example, in "Brian Jones (politician)", who "was a member of the Santee City Council", a reference is titled "Assemblyman Jones: On Campaign Finance...". In Miguel Martinez (politician), who "is a former New York City Council member", has a reference titled "Manhattan City Councilman Miguel Martinez admits he stole tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars". Maybe Americans were gunning for formal gender-neutral language, or don't want to pipelink "councilman" or "assemblyman" at the lead, or something else.
As for the Philippines, the actual "formal" name in the Philippine case is "Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod/(whatever "Sanggunian" it is)". Check out the official sample ballots for the 2013 elections; the constitution mentions "Senators" and "Members of the House of Representatives" (not "Congressmen/women" or "Representatives"). As for the Manila example, that section is under "Prominent councilors" so I dunno how that pans out. Maybe the person who added that did just want to be formal. –HTD 19:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, im not entirely sure about official government usage, but in naming categories, we normally just follow the same pattern in the category tree. So if Philippine English follows American English, we use the American examples above.--RioHondo (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, "council members" isn't the usual term even in US English; I believe it was chosen as a compromise wording to avoid (a) pointless spelling disputes about one-l "councilors" vs. two-ll "councillors", and (b) pointless editwarring over the modern evolution toward "councillor" instead of the more historically usual "alderman". But that said, the comparable British and Canadian categories do use "councillors" rather than "council members" — and WP:UE doesn't require us to impose spellings that wouldn't be normative in the relevant dialect of English (e.g. we don't impose "organizations-with-a-Z" onto British categories, or "organisations-with-an-S" onto American ones.) So this category ultimately should conform to whatever usage would be expected according to Philippine spelling. But for the record, I can easily find plenty of usages of double-ll "councillor" in USian contexts on Google — so I don't know if it's really as clearcut an "American vs. British Englishes" thing as some commenters suggest it is, and thus it would have to be a question of which spelling the Philippines can actually be directly attested as using. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom If that really is local usage. Practice in America or England is irrelevant, and we should not impose anything on local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it is common WP practice for Philippine-related articles, lists, categories and templates to copy off from the US since Philippine English ..."traditionally follows American English spelling and grammar".--RioHondo (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, because the Philippines generally uses U.S. English spellings per Philippine English. "Councilors" is more common in U.S. English. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:41, 21 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.
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.
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]
Delete Too small for the high bar set for the creation of eponymous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 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.
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]
Delete - per nom, non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT if the eponymous article is kept, otherwise obviously delete as empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge -- Even if the article is kept, we are not going to get any more (or if we do, they should go to AFD). We thus do not need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 18 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.
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 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]
Delete Serves no possible navigational function. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete West Germany exist for at most 45 years in the 20th-century (I think it was technically under 40, but the division of Germany was in place from 1945 in some form) so there is no reason for these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- also all centuries in categories, since the country only existed 45 years in one century. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 18 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.
