Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 10



Category:Nahal Hever manuscripts

 * 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) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Nahal Hever manuscripts to Category:Dead Sea scrolls
 * Nominator's rationale: None of the other pages in Category:Dead Sea scrolls is sectionalized by cave of origin. At least some of the four manuscripts, are not certainly from Nahal Hever (per articles). In a quick search, I didn't find a discussion of items from Nahal Hever as a distinct body of works. trespassers william (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. trespassers william (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. trespassers william (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. trespassers william (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. trespassers william (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge No clear benefit from this distinction as the topic is better understood by their content, not their specific location of discovery within the Qumran Caves area (clearly far too specific). SFB 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge -- no need to split by cave, particularly as the precise origin of some MSS is not clear, having been bought in markets (etc.) Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Current English expatriate footballers

 * 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) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting current english expatriate footballers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is way too transitive to be relevant. We already have a category for footballers who have ever been expatriates, which includes current expatriates. – PeeJay 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge?). Categorization should be for permanent characteristics - not a way of recording "current" status. DexDor (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Current has no place in a Category. As stated above there are sufficient categories to cover expatriate players.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just removed it from a page on my watchlist, and was intending to nominate it here myself. Categories aren't meant for something as temporary as location of current employment. As said above, categories already exist for footballers who have ever worked abroad, and that's enough. I've notified the creator. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete current cat not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as exists. GiantSnowman 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge back to : we do not usually allow current categories, as they become obsolete if not properly maintained. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Phyllis Allen Graduate Student librarians

 * 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) 02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting phyllis allen graduate student librarians


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently-created small cat without potential for growth. Purpose unclear: parent cat is itself. Might even be a WP:CSD candidate. Red rose64 (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. maybe speedy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:2014 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles

 * 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, so I will merge them to Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles in case any other editor has removed that parent category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2014 billboard hot 100 number-one singles


 * Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary creation and CFORK in place of Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 07:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except if you look rather carefully, I didn't remove or alter Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, I simply added Category:2014 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles as the very last category! BornonJune8 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A song should be categorized as a 2013 single or whatever and not by which chart lists it got into. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unnecessary split. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also be in favor of adding Category:1958 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:1959 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles to the nomination as the same reasoning applies. The overarching parent category captures all number ones on this chart and the lists are much better for identifying what was number one at a particular point in time. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The parent (with 1035 articles, apart from sub-cats) is too large to be useful as a navigation tool. I would suggest restructure into decade categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Categorization of chart performance by decade is a bad idea. Do you categorize them twice if they run over decade, say 2009 and 2010? I would question the need for such categorization at all, really. Precedent via CfD has established that categorization of albums in such a manner is not a good idea as it leads to overcategorization of internationally popular albums and lists such as List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2010s are much better in handling and organizing this information. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 14:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Dan David Prize laureates

 * 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) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting dan david prize laureates


 * Nominator's rationale: That a person has received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic - I checked a sample of the articles in this category and in each case the text either doesn't mention the award (example) or it's just one item in a list of awards received (example). For info: There is a list at Dan_David_Prize and (as usual in these cases) the list is a much better way of presenting this information (e.g. it can include people for whom there is no wp article).  See also WP:OC. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I beg to differ. If the argument is to be taken at face value, other categories on reputed awards will also qualify for deletion, including Templeton Prize, Wolf Prize laureates etc. For:
 * they also have separate page for the laureate list, and
 * not all pages of the laureate have direct reference/citation/mention in the text to them. I can also cite examples:
 * For Wolf: César Milstein, Arvid Carlsson, George Davis Snell, Jean Dausset, all Nobel laureates
 * For Templeton: Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Baba Amte, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 * Let's keep the category. It must be noted also that Dan David Prize is introduced quite recently, compared to other notable awards, so that its prestige and notabilty may (will grow) with time. Chhandama (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that responds to the point that having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of people such as Al Gore. Look how many categories there are on an article like Tom Stoppard.  See also WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:LIKE. DexDor (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But for scientists like Michel Brunet (paleontologist), Marcus Feldman, Israel Finkelstein, it is a defining characteristic, because the prize is of the highest honour internationally that they have achieved. In this sense, since the prize is of recent introduction, the number of categories in some people is quite out of context. Chhandama (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other stuff existing is not a reason to keep this category. Categories need to be defining for the content.  The examples above show that it clearly is not in many cases, if not all.  Vegaswikian1 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Three prizes of $1M does not make this a major award. It fails WP:OC.  The normal outcome would be to listify, but nthat is not necessary: Dan David Prize exists.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Crossroads Television System network stations

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Crossroads Television System network stations to Category:Yes TV stations
 * Nominator's rationale: system has been renamed as of September 2014 ViperSnake151   Talk  02:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy support for rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.