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 to Category:Hunter Mariners people. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Hunter Mariners staff ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: we create categories for rugby league players and coaches. Not a standalone Category for "staff" LibStar ( talk) 18:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Rename as Hunter Mariners people, as per the category tree and the Canterbury Bulldogs example. Mattlore ( talk) 00:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced by that, as "people" is vague. you could argue players are also people, and do we start making "people" categories for all sports teams? LibStar ( talk) 07:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Players are indeed people, which is why they are included in the category. Mattlore ( talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Rename - As per the Canterbury Bulldogs example. If the wording is an issue, then perhaps examples could be suggested as deletion doesn't help anyone in this instance. Fleets ( talk) 17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Rename, the wording is fine, it's the same as for companies, see Category:People by company. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 3 June 2017 (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: merge. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:February 1010 events to Category:1010 events
• Propose merging Category:April 1014 events to Category:1014 events
• Propose merging Category:July 1014 events to Category:1014 events
• Propose merging Category:October 1016 events to Category:1016 events
• Propose merging Category:February 1018 events to Category:1018 events
• Propose merging Category:September 1021 events to Category:1021 events
• Propose merging Category:August 1030 events to Category:1030 events

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. Except perhaps in very recent history, the month in which an event occurred is entirely trivial and this category scheme merely leads to huge amounts of minuscule categories that will never be decently populated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Procedural comment, I've listed all involved categories up to 1800 on the talk page. The nomination needs to be split in two parts with a cut-off in 1800 because the 19th, 20th and 21st century are further diffused by having sports events by month. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply

 Administrator note Due to the now thousands of categories involved and that most are sparsely populated - waiving standard practice for placing CfD tags on each page. A bot task was proposed, but as this would hide the updates from watchlists the value of that exercise would be diminished. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Left general notices of this discussion at Category talk:Events by month, Category talk:Events by year, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Support – the nom is on firm ground. Oculi ( talk) 11:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep pending a proper nomination or discussion of the whole tree. Instead of piecemeal nominations, it should be decided the cut off point at which these categories should start. From the 19th century onwards (it can be seen that almost every month exists ( User:KConWiki/Events by month) the category tree ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:events by month is well populated and could probably go back further. Tim! ( talk) 17:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Should we discuss a cut off at all? Now, in 2017, it may still be important to distinguish events happened in September 2016 versus in August 2016, but in one or two years time that distinction will have become totally irrelevant. In other words, any cut off will not be lasting. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• For a proper nomination, see the procedural comment above (that was added later). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge them all, including the items only on the talk page. I agree with Marcocapelle's statement, at least for the 18th-and-earlier centuries. Whether sport, military incidents during major wars, or other subjects with lots of events per year, I can see by-month as a useful scheme for dividing large by-year categories, but only if we already have a lot of articles and a split is definitely going to be useful. Nyttend ( talk) 12:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Support -- but I would go further and merge all 1010 items (except births and deaths) to Category:1010. At these remote periods, the minute division into categories leads to thin twigs, with several categories with nothing but one subcat providing different routes to one (or a few) articles, not cat-trees. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Largely support that idea, but we can only proceed with one a step at a time. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• 1800 is way to late. Should be 1600 or something at least. J 1982 ( talk) 16:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• The WP:TRIVIALCAT criterion applies to well into the 21st century as noted before. The WP:SMALLCAT criterion applies to at least 1850, many monthly categories are not even existing until around 1850. The cutoff of 1800 has been chosen for a mere practical reason, because of the sports subcategorization scheme. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It's because I originally only added categories from 1850 and later. Later, other went even more back in time. J 1982 ( talk) 21:37, 30 May 2017 (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: merge. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Stochastic algorithms to Category:Randomized algorithms

Nominator's rationale: I fail to see how a "stochastic algorithm" can be different from a "randomized algorithm" and we don't have an article Stochastic algorithm either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Pinging participants to this previous related discussion: @ Jochen Burghardt and Mark viking: please share your thoughts. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Agree I don't see a difference either. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 08:58, 26 May 2017 (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 as option B. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Option B – the parent category is Category:Organizations based in Turkey and has been stable since 2006. Editors adding subcats should honour the parent and not muddy the waters by using their own personal preference. (User:Rathfelder is a serial offender.) Oculi ( talk) 08:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Option B, both because of the age of the parent "z" category, and because the "z" categories far outnumber the "s" categories. Unlike some EU member categories, for which I supported "s" because EU membership means a good deal of use of en:gb English, Turkey isn't an EU member, and it's not a member of any other organiszation with the UK but not the US (or vice versa) in which English gets heavy use in Turkey, so it should be treated like any other country with no indigenous English-speaking population. Nyttend ( talk) 00:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Option B Per WP:RETAIN to match the parent category which is at Category:Organizations based in Turkey and has been for more than a decade. AusLondonder ( talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (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. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Hanseatic Cross (Hamburg) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for any of the recipients. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- OCAWARD for NN award. This is a WWI decoration by three Free Cities of the German Empire. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 5 June 2017 (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. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Knights of the Military Order of St. Henry ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for any of the recipients. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- As a national award created in 1736, this might just be notable. Certainly listify before deleting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, many articles in this category don't even mention this at all in the text, or just in passing. Besides, most people listed in this category received this award after Saxony was incorporated in the German Empire so that it can hardly be referred to as a national award. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 5 June 2017 (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. ℯ xplicit 06:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Civil Order of Saxony ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for an award for meritorious service. Fails WP:CATDEF & WP:OCAWARD. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- As a national award created in 1815, this might just be notable. Certainly listify before deleting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, same as category above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 5 June 2017 (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.