Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 9

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) 05:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:AFC submissions on hold more than 24 hours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 48 hours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours was renamed last year in good faith at WP:CFDS. However, no-one was able to update the template that populates it; a request at WP:RT went unanswered. I have finally traced a change in the template in 2011 which left the category obsolete.[1] Both the redirect and the current category page can therefore be deleted. The coding to populate the 48-hours category was removed even earlier, in 2010, so that one can also be deleted.[2] – Fayenatic London 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe this functionality has been replaced by Category:AfC pending submissions by age SFB 09:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]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: relisted at 2018 May 23. – Fayenatic London 08:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rayne Rice Birds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Defunct baseball team with just one entry and a subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, this discussion is nearly similar to this other discussion in which meanwhile more editors have commented. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2018 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1944 in Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single member category with vanishing small chance of growing and/or being useful Neonorange (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a historic figure. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Categories by year typically involve events or works in the history of a country, art, science, etc. Not the life of a single individual. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment single category member is an image with metadata showing copyright is held by Corbis Corporation. — Neonorange (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not nearly enough different year-specific pages about Malcolm X to make this categorization system useful. --Qetuth (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The content is already in Malcolm X. I do not think his photo needs adding to 1944 (if it is not there). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2018 (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: keep. ℯxplicit 04:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Order of Saint Olav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A duplicate of the formerly deleted Category:Order of St. Olav. Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not individually discussed at the previous CfD. It's the main order of knighthood for its country; I don't see a significant difference between this and, say, Category:Order of the British Empire or Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion (which we reinstated after a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 14, removing only the ex-officio-royalty and political-favor-level subcategories). Spot-checking found that, while there were a few members of the category who appeared to have been given this knighthood as a political favor and had many similar awards (a sign that, for those people it might not be defining), other members had been given it for their cultural or scholarly accomplishments and it was a significant honor for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the article "the Order of St. Olav is the highest civilian honour currently conferred by Norway", though it's unclear how many holders there are - not vast numbers to judge by the size of the category. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: for info, there were over 1,200 in the category & its sub-cats before, see [3]. – Fayenatic London 10:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: for the record, the previous CFD was a group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_27#A_few_more_award_categories. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. The levels are, per the article:

"Grand Cross (Storkors) – awarded to heads of state as a courtesy and in rare cases to individuals for merit; wears the badge on a collar (chain), plus the star on the left chest. If the collar is not worn the badge may be worn on a sash on the right shoulder;

Commander, which is divided into two classes: Commander with Star (Kommandør med stjerne) – wears the badge on a necklet, plus the star on the left chest; Commander (Kommandør) – wears the badge on a necklet;

Knight, which is divided into two classes: "

-in line with other orders, at least the Grand Cross (excl. foreign heads of state) and maybe the Commanders would rate a category, no? Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2018 (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: double merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional desert planets to Category:Fictional terrestrial planets

Nominator's rationale: There is the main article, Desert planet, and four articles about specific planets. Of the latter four, one (Dar Sai) is at AfD, so if it is deleted this category will be too small. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dar Sai. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Double upmerge, also with Category:Desert planets in fiction. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 9 May 2018 (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: double merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional ocean planets to Category:Fictional terrestrial planets

Nominator's rationale: Four of these five articles are adaptations of the novel Solaris, so there are really only two distinct entries. The closest fit I know of for this category would be Aquablue, but 3 articles is not enough for a category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Double upmerge, also with Category:Ocean planets in fiction. I did a search and found one or two others and a bunch of "R with possibilities" redirects, but that's about it. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 9 May 2018 (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.