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.
CommentWP:OCAWARD is against awards leading to categories except for the most notable, those that become defining categories. The text doesn't give any examples, but I presume things like a Nobel prize or an Oscar would count. Once someone wins a Nobel, they get talked about as "Nobel laureate so-and-so". Once someone wins an Oscar, they are forever "Oscar winner so-and-so" (as you see on posters for their new films). I.e., they are defining categories. I'm not certain any award in popular music has quite the same impact. Maybe the Grammies? But it's not induction in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's a bigger thing in the US, but given much less notice in the rest of the world. But even in the US, it's not a defining category.
Does being a RnRHoF inductee become a defining category? Let's take an example. I looked at Phil Collins, as a musician I like. He's a RnRHoF inductee; he's in the category. I looked at the 10 most recent news items about him on Google News. Not one mentioned his inductee status. One mentioned he was a Grammy winner, although that was a news piece at grammy.com! Phrases that were used about Collins include, "drummer/singer/legend", "“In the Air Tonight” singer/songwriter", "English musician", "musician", "Legendary performer", "Genesis legend", "Genesis drummer and vocalist", and "pop icon". Those are, therefore, defining categories: he's an English singer, drummer and songwriter who used to be in Genesis. RnRHoF induction, is not something "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (to quote WP:CATDEF). I didn't see a single mention.
Maybe Phil Collins is just odd. So, I looked in the category at the next name listed. That's Tom Constanten, who I've not heard of before today. Again, I looked at the 10 most recent news items about him on Google News. Again, not one mentioned his inductee status. Phrases used were, "keyboardist", "the only living ex-Grateful Dead-member keyboardist", "avant-garde musician", "original Grateful Dead pianist", "Grateful Dead alum", and "Grateful Dead's". Those are, therefore, defining categories: he's an avant-garde keyboardist who used to be in The Grateful Dead. RnRHoF induction, is not something "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".
Next on the list is Paul Cook, who I have heard of! Turns out there's a lot of Paul Cooks, so it took longer to go through a Google News search, but terms I got were "drummer", "surviving member of the Sex Pistols", "of the Sex Pistols" and "Sex Pistols drummer".
Being a RnRHoF inductee is a nice award, a big award, but it doesn't become a defining category that reliable sources commonly and consistently define subjects as having. Ergo, it fails WP:OCAWARD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This HOF is certainly a more prominent as an attraction in Cleveland and with their annual award show. Looking through the actual articles though, this award mentioned but it's generally given decades after the groups Rock and Roll hits and seems to more reflect the fame of the winners than to produce it. Although performers do cross genres, there's also a decent amount winners I don't consider to be defined by Rock and Roll : N.W.A and Run-DMC are hip hop, Neil Diamond is adult contemporary, Bonnie Raitt is more blues/country. This is certainly a closer call than many other nominations I've made for Halls of Fame, but it still doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2019 (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: It is consensus per multiple CFD here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4], and here[5] that we don't subcategorize sportspeople by the type of sport they perform. William, is the complaint department really on the roof?23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep Thank you, William, for the heads up. I did not know about the subcategorization. My one questions is whether skateboarding differs because it is very much a geographic dependent sport? Skaters from NY perform on different terrain than skaters from LA or SF. Thoughts?--Wil540 art (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (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: split/merge, the princely families tree is a very small tree probably because only few princely families consistently remain princely families, as titles may change in the course of centuries. Dynasties and noble families are more general, and equally applicable to the families in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2019 (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:Primates of Eastern Orthodox uncanonical churches
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 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: In line with the category guidelines, where reliable foundation dates exist, populated place articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade from the 1200s to the 1490s, by century from the 10th century BC to the 13th century and by millennium for the 2nd millennium BC and earlier. . Greenshed (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MergeCategory:Populated places established in the 1110s. There seems to be enough content in the 12th century category to merit a split back to 1100. However the whole tree is somewhat problematic. I found in the 12th century category articles on places founded after 1200 - perhaps due to mistranslation of a foreign article: in Swedish "1200-talet" is 13th century - perhaps similarly in German. The first mention of a place does not support its date of "foundation": it may be much older. In England, several 1000 places are first mentioned in 1086, but most will be centuries older. In this particular case an Abbey was allowed to found a town at its door, so that the date 1118 for the town is correct, though the abbey is apparently older. Douglas, Isle of Man appears in the basis of two passing mentions in chronicles: it may be older, but perhaps only a village, not a town.
Comment Fair point but that's more of a problem with how some editors are using the category tree rather than the tree itself. Comments on the most appropriate cut offs are welcome at Category talk:Populated places by period of establishment. When I recently split out the 13th century into decades I found that there were fewer properly categorized articles than a brief inspection of the century category had suggested. If anything that suggests that splitting by decade as far back as the 12th century is unwise but as I say comments are welcome. Greenshed (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the decade categories of the 13th century are so poorly populated it does not make sense to make the decade split for the 12th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2019 (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.
Oppose as nominated. Not sure about the substantive merits, but there are plenty of subcats e.g. Category:Biota by continent, Category:Biota by country. I just checked: 682 subcats used the term "biota. I don't see the sense in renaming the parent category while keeping the rest unchanged.
This CFD doesn't propose renaming any categories; it proposes a merge of two categories that have the same scope (nothing more). The convention generally followed in en wp is to use the more scientific terminology ("biota", "fauna" etc) in Foos-of-Foobar (and Endemic-foos-of-Foobar etc) categories and use the less scientific terminology ("organisms", "animals" etc) in other categories (although there are inconsistencies and Foos-of-era categories are currently a mixture) (Example earlier CFD for background) - we don't usually have both (e.g. we have Category:Biota of Africa; we don't also have an "Organisms of Africa" category). A combined biota/organisms category could be at Category:Biota, but that would be less consistent with categories such as Category:Individual organisms. DexDor(talk)13:43, 18 February 2019 (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 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.
These intersection by denomination/location categories are all 1 or 2 article (or create such with their parent category) and tend to hinder navigation since they break up small groups of articles and none of the target/merge categories are overly large. As far as growth potential, there are some other churches we don't have articles on in most of the categories but too few are notable to foreseeably get to 5 or so articles. With the cathedral categories, there likely is no room for growth outside of Greece. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2019 (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 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 Volleyball Hall of Fame article lists 140 recipients only a minority of which are redlinks but the category currently just has 2 of them. Clicking through the articles, the award is typically mentioned in a list with other awards and doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2019 (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.