Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 10 September 12 >

September 11

Category:Pornographic male actors

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (deletion at request of creator, i.e. User:Liz). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, recent creation, presumably by someone who didn't realise Category:Male pornographic film actors‎ already exists. Robofish ( talk) 22:41, 11 September 2013 (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:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • National awards to their own citizens (and residents), which are a recognition of their notability, though some national awards may not be sufficient by themsleves to confer WP notability. For them award categories may be useful.
  • National awards to foreign monarchs and other royalty; also leading politicians, which are an aspect of international diplomacy. The Royals and politicians are notable from that status, not from the award. WP:OC#AWARD should be strictly applied, usually resulting in listification.
These are not the equivalent of a fraternity or sorority, since membership is awarded, not coopted, but they will clutter up articles badly. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath Mimich ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor ( talk) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete Listify on the Order of Saint Elizabeth article since it's a stub anyway. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —   dain omite   06:46, 11 October 2013 (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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Elizabeth

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2013 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Sacred Tripod

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The specific instruction is "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." how is this a defining characteristic or the people involved. When people have reiceved 50 awards claiming all 50 are defining just does not make sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:44, 12 September 2013 (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:American actors of Chinese descent

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: no consensus. Unlike some of the other actor/ethnicity categories nominated on this date, this is not re-created material. It was nominated for deletion here, with the result of "no consensus". The closing admin's statement there applies as much to this discussion: "In many other recent discussions, there has been a consensus to upmerge intersections of actors and ethnicity. In this case, there is clearly no consensus." Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply
By this rationale, we should eliminate all 48 subcategories in Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent and the subcategories in Category:People by occupation and ethnicity. I'm sure you could find examples in each of those categories with an individual's ethnicity isn't relevant to their occupation. But I think along with Category guidelines, one has to consider what categories users are creating to help organize knowledge. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I noticed that you created some of these categories you are proposing to delete, John Pack Lambert, so I guess you have changed your mind about their value? I saw this when I went to notify the category creators of these CfD discussions and it appeared that in several instances, you were the creator. Liz Read! Talk! 11:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose Upmerger of the male actors category specifically. We have decided at multiple discussion to use actresses and male actors as the category names, and to not have actors be a stand in category for male actors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Also, I will seriously consider the validity of reasoning behind deleting these categories once the WP community comes together and decide that they should delete Category:African-American actors and other similar African American categories. For that matter, I'm not sure why that category hasn't been renamed Category:American actors of African descent. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, per my argument at the previous cfd: within US culture, certain ethnicities are still not recognized as identical to the mainstream images on tv/movies. in this field, appearance is 90% of the reason for getting a job. historically, most people from these ethnic groups would get very limited roles. its better now, but we dont base our categories on our best intentions, but on current and historic truth. and of course, why not eliminate all other 48 cats of this nature, and oppose per Robofish's point about certain actors notability for their ethnicity. its true that SOME actors (like Dean Cain, as mentioned in the previous cfd) are not normally labelled by their ethnicity, but thats clearly because they dont look particularly "ethnic". not all elements in a category are as "categoryish" as others, which is why its good to have other ways of describing such, like lists, article sections, to provide nuance. the prime example of why ethnicity and performance is essential is in pornography, where its of paramount importance, and will be until we all look identical. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 17:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
If the issue is all about appearance, than this is a categorization by race, which we specifically disallow. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Yes I created some of these categories. I have come to see we do not need these triple-intersect categories. They will lead to much to ghettoization to be useful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all violates WP:CATEGRS unless people can bring forth reliable sources that these actors act differently than their non-Fooish descent peers. If one cannot, these cannot stay. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:CATEGRS includes: " But an American politician of Native American descent is a different context from an American politician of European background. Thus, Category:Native American politicians is valid, but Category:German American politicians and Category:Swedish American politicians should not exist. The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that politicians of that ethnic background happen to exist." We also have porn actors listed by nationality and ethnicity. and its not by "appearance" here if its by chinese, japanese, etc. and asian descent will of course include south asian and other areas often not associated with "asian" features, so its not by race. of course they dont "act" differently. they are hired differently, even to this day. heres a source showing this ghettoization: [1], and i believe there are a lot more. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same arguments as below for the other similar categories. Are you really going to go one by one and list each one before consensus is reached, and maybe people will get tired of it and stop weighing in? Tvoz/ talk 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all per nom and previous cfd. Oculi ( talk) 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To the extent that Actors of Chinese descent are a distinct group, with clear history, this is a result of their participation in the largely international field of acting. They will be involved in British, American and Canadian productions, and their joint history will be seen in treatment in the same way in all these places. Actors of Chinese descent will be treated as a group throughout, without much regard to where they initially came from. It really does not make sense to split them by specific nationality and ethnicity in an acting context. To the extent an actor from Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc. is identified as of Chinese descent they will fit in this category. From a perspective of having useful categories that actually help in searching, I think we are better served by putting people in specific categories like Category:American people of Chinese descent or Category:Australian people of Chinese descent and then the generalized part category, not splitting them by specific nationality in the descent cat. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:51, 19 September 2013 (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:American actors of Japanese descent

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: upmerge and delete. This is re-created material, Category:American actors of Japanese descent having been deleted most recently here. If re-creation is desired, the proper step would be to start a nomination at WP:DRV. I do not regard this discussion as presenting the clear consensus that would be required to overturn the previous consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Are you ready to dispense with categories for Jewish-American actors, African-American actors, Native American actors, Hispanic and Latino American actors and Puerto Rican actors? Not to mention British actors of Chinese descent or British actors of South Asian descent and all of the descent categories for other nationalities. It's not unusual to have these categories.
Why don't you go after truly useless categories like Category:Actors from North Carolina? That serves absolutely no purpose at all. Actors/Actresses by state is a truly pointless set of categories. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment These arguments are clearly ignoring that this is an already decided issue, and there needs to be consensus to change. Also, the "other stuff exists" arguments is not legitimate. If someone does not like that category they are free to nominate it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Actually, since Category:Actors from Pennsylvania is currently being discussed at CfD, you do not even need to make a nomination to express your dislike for such categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Consensus changes and there was probably only a half a dozen Editors who weighed in the last time this issue (Occupation & Ethnicity) was discussed. Let's publicize this to a larger group of users beyond the few CfD regulars and see what other users think. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep all As per Robofish, Liz, Cgingold. The intersection of ethnicity and occupation, particularly for an occupation like acting where it specifically comes into play, is valid and useful. Guidelines do not dictate action, if they did they would be policy, and even if policy they would be subject to interpretation. This is not a trivial trait, and these cats allow readers to search on traits that they find of interest. We're supposed to be helping readers, not being doctrinaire or nit-picky. These cats work, and they provide a valuable means of navigation around the encyclopedia. No valid reason to delete. Tvoz/ talk 23:43, 12 September 2013 (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.

Jewish American actors

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. This is re-created material. Category:Jewish American actors was deleted here, and the deletion was endorsed at DRV here. However, per WP:CCC, I regard this discussion as involving enough editors and presenting a clear enough consensus to justify overturning the previous consensus decisions. (Disclosure: I have expressed opinions about Category:Jewish American actors in the past, but I have always been in favour of deletion, so I trust my closing of this discussion will not be viewed as tainted by those previously expressed opinions.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert—I'm not finding the language "being Jewish is an ethnicity, not just a religion" simply by clicking on the three Categories that you are proposing for deletion. Bus stop ( talk) 00:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
P.S. It's not an effective argument to pick one contemporary actor at random and argue that the category isn't valid for that one person so it should be abolished. There is an entire history of Yiddish theater that is important for the development of late 19th, early 20th century acting and entertainment. Granted most actors located in this category are part of that movement but you should have a long term view, not just think about 21st century actors. I guess you should work on deleting all of the child categories from Category:Jewish actors because Jewish-American actors is just the beginning. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Which is exactly why I say that a category that limited itself to just those involved in Yiddish theatre would be valid. But to try to treat all actors who are Jewish as if they are somehow affected by this just does not work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, you better get started on proposing all of the 40 subcategories in Category:Jews by occupation and 28 subcategories in Category:People by occupation and ethnicity be deleted as well. That will be a lot of work. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
You do know, JPL, that no matter how many comments you post, we each count for one vote. And, yes, I do know it's not a strict vote count. I'm just eager to hear what other Editors think about these suggested deletions. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The insistence that this and other such categories are "violating the ERGS rules" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and in fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold ( talk) 04:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Note I declined a speedy delete on this as although there was a decision to delete this over half a decade ago, the arguments were weak. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8. In any case I would elect to keep this category, as actors are often described this way, so it means that it is useful and not an original or useless idea. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Media and acting, along with finance are areas of substantial Jewish American success, despite being a minority. It has nothing to do with Jewish "ethnicity" or religion itself. Any article about American Jews would include information on Jews (regardless of how they are Jewish) in these areas. For the opposite reason, that there are so few, but people think there are none, information on great American Jewish athletes also in informative and encyclopedic. Sposer ( talk) 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an argument for having an article on the subject, not for categorizing people this way. I see nothing in the above that could not be used to create Category:American Latter Day Saint actors. Why is Jewishness treated differently than other religions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
My thoughts too. I'm not sure whether it's because people like them or hate them more than other religions, or just think that they are sufficiently distanced from Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, and Roman Catholics, that they are worth categorizing and the others aren't. It may also be that people perceive them in racial/ethnic types (which often goes with the "hate them" folks); however, people like Sammy Davis Jr. cause them to go into fits of illogic because it shows that one can change race/ethnicity, which makes race/ethnicity not a defining characteristic if merely changing religion can change it... go figure. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If Jewishness is a religion, which seems to be what Bus stop is arguing above, than we even more should not have this category. We do not categorize people by the intersection of religion and occupation except in some very specific cases. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:55, 12 September 2013 (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:American actors of Italian descent

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. This is re-created material, the category having been deleted most recently here. If re-creation is desired, the proper step would be to start a nomination at WP:DRV. I do not regard this discussion as involving enough editors or presenting the clear consensus that would be required to overturn the previous consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't know who "we" is, but I think Liz is quite right that you are nominating something for deletion, so you should give the reasons to do so, not the other way around. This is a distortion of the process that is a foundational pillar - decisions by consensus. Tvoz/ talk 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Go read the CfD discussions that can be linked from going to Category:Italian-American actors. This has been deleted multiple times. there has been a decision against most intersections of European ethnicities and occupations. Look at the discussions that lead to the deletion of Category:American musicians of Italian descent. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
ERGS are not rules, they are guidelines. Tvoz/ talk 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I really do not think this works as defining to the people involved. Selena Gomez is a Hispanic and Latino American actress, a category I have never questioned that we should have. She also happens to have some Italian ancestry. That might be enough to class her in Category:American people of Italian descent, but it is not enough to class her as Category:American actresses of Italian descent. Doing such will just lead to category clutter. We decided to scrap the very closely related Category:American musicians of Italian descent. Having just a generalized people of x descent category is usually sufficient, I see no reason to subdivide by profession, since profession overlap is high, ERGS rules say people must be in a geneic non-ethnic category for all their professions, and having these categories will just create a mess. Hispanic and Latino works, because it is clearly defining of the people involved, Americans of Italian descent does not, because this often involves a barely trivial facto of ancestry. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as no valid argument has been presented to delete. Actually no argument at all has been presented. Tvoz/ talk 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The reason to delete is because the intersection of being of Italian descent and being an actor is a trivial intersection. It does not change how the actor acts, and it rarely has much effect on the roles the person is cast in. It is a trivial intersection of occupation and ethnicity, and we do not categorize by trivial intersections. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this cat violates WP:CATEGRS; no reliable sources to show that actors with the minutest trace of Italian ancestry act any different that those without it. Who would actually believe such a proposition? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (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:Honorary Companions of Honour of the National Order of Merit (Malta)

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2013 (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:Honorary Members of Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2013 (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:Collars of the Order of Merit (Chile)

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Why is the article on a queen of Denmark at User talk:Margaretha Hendriks-Ririmasse? I found this as an oddlooking member of this category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath Mimich ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor ( talk) 21:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —   dain omite   07:02, 11 October 2013 (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:Grand Commanders of the Order of the Federal Republic (Nigeria)

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2013 (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:Collars of the Order of the Liberator

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (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:Grand Crosses Special Class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2013 (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:Knights Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2013 (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:Order of Saints Olga and Sophia

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2013 (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:Extra Ladies of the Order of the Garter

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
What part of the undesirability of putting people in 40 plus award categories do you not understand? Juliana of the Netherlands is in 44 awards categories, how is this helpful? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
What part of WP:CIVIL do you not understand? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
There is no reason why I should pretend that the current system is working. When I can easily find 25 articles in 40+ awards categories something is broken and needs to change. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (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:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of Charles III

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
However these people are all getting way too many awards, and for none of them is this particular award notable. The other levels of the award may be notable to the recipients, but this level is not. At this level it is an exercise in international diplomacy that is not notable to the people designated. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Acoording to the article on this order, it is given out to Spaniards, there's even a restriction to the number of living members who are Spaniards with these grade. -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 10:34, 15 September 2013 (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:Collars of the Order of Civil Merit

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Not if we made the logical decision that these categories should only be applied where it is notable to the individuals, and that foreign heads of state who have never attended a meeting have no notable connection to the award or the order. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Per the article on this order, this grade is not restricted to foreigners or heads of state. -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (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:Science fiction comedies

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 to Category:Comic science fiction. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A scheme for Category:Comic science fiction already exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:18, 11 September 2013 (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:Recipients of the Order of Friendship (Kazakhstan)

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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (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:Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan

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; I have considered the discussion regarding Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia) here in closing this discussion. May I suggest that in the future, such related categories be nominated for deletion together? Having two separate, parallel discussions on consecutive days muddied the waters considerably, which I suspect led to the significant delay in the closing of these discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2013 (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:Grand Cross of the Order of the Sun

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: no conesnsus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The other three awards have also been nominated for deletion. On the other hand, it does make sense to single out grades that have generally been given to heads of states and their consorts. In fact, it was by following that tree that I came up with this an several other nominations. When we have people in the category who are in 50+ award categories, something is broken. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
As the other categories have subsequently been nominated for deletion, my objection has been addressed. Your concern is the primary function of categories WP:OC#DEFINING. If the category is not defining for the article then it shouldn't be categorized in it. We have many articles that could fall into thousands of categories, but we only categorize them into the defining ones. Just because it is not defining for some of the people in the category does not make the category overcatorization, until you sort out all the non-definined articles, and see how many articles remain where it is defining (and how many other articles exist on Wikipedia which have not been categorized but should be into the category for which it is defining). -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 05:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, when I try to remove 30+ non-defining to Eisenhower categories from his article, they get put back in. Arguing "this category is not defining to this person" does not seem to work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but purge of heads of state etc. -- This one has been awarded to some other people, possibly only ambassadors to Peru. Listify if necessary befire deleting: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath. Mimich ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor ( talk) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —   dain omite   07:17, 11 October 2013 (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:Knights of the Elephant

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I am adding the one entry Category:Officers of the Order of Elephant to this nomination. Having the parent category, which can hold articles on the order itself, does not force us to have the child category for holders. Especially when the holders are foreign royals and other heads of states or their family members, people who have way too many awards categories to start with. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
As my concern has been addressed, I'm withdrawing my objection on that basis. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 05:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
But no where I Fode's article does it make any mention of this award. I would just remove Fode from the category, but generally that is doscoraged if it will empty the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath. Mimich ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor ( talk) 22:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • keep Highest order of Denmark Christian75 ( talk) 19:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete both per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours articles. Being a recipient of these honours is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —   dain omite   07:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • 35 of the 158 are Danish. That is very low. Even for the Danish people most are notable for being members of the roayl family, not for the specific exact awards they were given. We already have a well developed list that groups people both by the monatrch who issued this award to them and by nationality. I see nothing gained from also having the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:42, 11 October 2013 (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:Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John

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: do not delete; some rumblings about a potential rename in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The category seems to have merged people from both together. I removed one person who was obviously connected with the Venerable Order of Saint John and not the group the category heading points to, and I checked two others and found in their long list of 15 or so honors mention of this, the others I have no clue yet if they belong. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
You're right. It's a bit outside my expertise. Mimich ( talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This category is currently mixing people given awards by both The Venerable Order of Saint John and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Pope Benedict XVI is in the later group. However having looked at King Hussein of Jordan's listing of awards, I am not sure why it makes any sense to categorize him by all of them. This is clearly a mess. I would argue though that neither award is truly defining for any recipient. The fact that people have not noticed that some of these people are in a totally wrong category just goes to show how peripheral to the notability of these people this category is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If the category is kept it needs to be renamed to end the two unlike things being categorized as the same. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In general there is confusion between various Orders of St John (and similar). I had it on my "to do" list to try to sort out the confusion of associated categories, but until the issue of whether or not categories are a valid way of linking odm recipients has been resolved, it's probably best left alone. Folks at 137 ( talk) 11:04, 23 September 2013 (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:Honorary Knights of the Thistle

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
But this is just an honorary inclusion. It is sort of like how we have Category:Harvard University alumni but limit it to regular alumni, and neither categorize honorary alumni as alumni nor have a separate category for them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The Honorary order is probably being given to foreign heads of state. Category:Knights of the Thistle is a British award, mainly to its own citizens. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. Comments : See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath for the "honorary element". It is far less used for foreigners than the Order of the Garter. Mimich ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor ( talk) 22:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —   dain omite   07:18, 11 October 2013 (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:Grand Crosses of Royal Order of Sahametrei

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2013 (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:Collars of the Order of the Chrysanthemum

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2013 (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:Extra Knights Companion of the Garter

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
That similar category has now also been nominated for deletion. Since this is a category of foreign royals for whom the appointment of this position is not notable, having it is not the same issue as other order of the garter categories. Categories are supposed to only categorize notable traits for people, thus Category:Skateboarders does not include everyone who has ever used a skateboard for whom we have an article, and in the same way, the Order of the Garter category does not need to include members for whom it was an honrary and trivial appointment, when it was just one of 50 plus awards they received. With someone like Akihito I am not exagreating by saying 50 awards. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Ah ha. On what basis / for what reasons, (citing which sources), would you argue that? And what circumstances would cause you to argue that? Saying "I would argue that this award is not at all defining to its recipients", without explaining what you would argue, or why you would argue it, is just empty noise. Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a category, as it is being used as a diplomatic honour to foreign royalty. Listify if necessary: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. category: Degraded Extra Knights Companion of the Garter‎ is as bad. It consists of German royalty excluded from the order during WWI. This is an intersting list, but not appropriate as a category. It should also be listified and then deleted. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath. Mimich ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor ( talk) 22:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —   dain omite   07:19, 11 October 2013 (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:Grand Crosses of the National Order of Vietnam

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: upmerge to Category:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: among the people in this category is Haile Selassie I. He is in 50 awards categories. He received national awards from about another dozen countries that we fortunantely do not have. This is the type of category clutter the rule against award categories is supposed to end. We should not have these awards that are handed out like candy to foreign dignitaries as categories. This is just excessive and leads to way to much category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
No it won't. If we decided that this is not a notable characteristic of these people, we just do not add them to the categories involved here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
If you thought it was a nonnotable order, you should have nominated the recipients category, this nomination does not indicate that, only that a grade category should be deleted, whereupon its contents would be dumped, correctly, into the recipients category. -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 10:21, 15 September 2013 (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:Télévision de Radio-Canada

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 for now; the article name is not currently under discussion, but if it changes, this category can also be renamed via the speedy section. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: New official name, see Ici Radio-Canada Télé ViperSnake151  Talk  17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Rename per nom. Coulda speedied this as a C2D though. Bearcat ( talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "Ici" is a branding and promotion issue, but isn't actually the name, per the large amount of coverage on the issue in Quebec French language newspapers. We should also use English. Category:French-sector CBC television Radio-Canada is called CBC in English. Though personally, I prefer SRC, but it seems to have fallen out of use; the "Ici station Radio-Canada" chime was melodic. -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (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:Films directed by G. Kruger

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) 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Spelling error. Individual's name is inconsistent in sources, but contemporary sources I've looked at prefer Krugers.  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:10, 11 September 2013 (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:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia)

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: mixed. There is a rough consensus that the Bravery Medal and Cross of Valour are sufficiently defining, and the Commendation for Gallantry is not. This would suggest an outcome to delete Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Gallantry and to keep Category:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia) and Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Australia).
However, none of the arguments to keep have addressed the elephant in the room—namely, that not a single article about a recipient of the Bravery Medal or the Cross of Valour appears to exist. Therefore, the issue we face is not that the categories are merely underpopulated, but rather that we have no articles with which to populate them. None of the five recipients of the Cross of Valour have an article, and neither Special:WhatLinksHere nor multiple searches uncovered an article about any one the 1,104 recipients of the Bravery Medal.
In accordance with the established policy of not retaining empty categories with the anticipation that they might be populated eventually, the default outcome is to speedy delete Category:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia) and Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Australia) at this time. When at least one biography is identified that could be categorized, then the categories should be recreated without any need for additional discussion or deletion review. I think that an article about a medal should not be categorized with articles about recipients of the medal—the medal should be linked from the category description, but the medal itself is not a recipient—but that is a moot point in this case since we have no articles about recipients to speak of. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories do not (currently) contain any articles about recipients of the awards. Note: My edits to remove articles about the medals themselves from these categories have been reverted by the category creator. DexDor ( talk) 05:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The nominator's rationale is pretty much irrelevant to decision about whether to keep the categories. If some articles shouldn't be in the category, then they should be removed; and if we have articles medal recipients, they should be added. The fact that the category has not yet been populated is no reason to delete it.
    If the nom has a valid reason for deletion, I will consider it, but so far this looks a clear keep. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – it seems reasonable to me to include the article about the medal as the main article, but less reasonable to have a category if no notable recipients can be found. I did find a recipient for the 2nd one; but is the equivalent of 'mentioned in dispatches' defining? I didn't find anyone for the first one and doubt if it is defining. For the 3rd one, which has only been awarded 5 times to real people, this does seem defining but none of the 5 has an article and perhaps none is notable ("one event"). There is a fictional recipient, Chris Blake. Oculi ( talk) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Keep 1st & 3rd - per Peacemaker (& Oculi). I have also just created Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Brave Conduct (Australia), however, this time I've made sure I've found a recipient with which to commence populating it. As BrownHairedGirl says, the fact that the other categories have not been populated yet is insufficient reason to delete them. I'll be a bit surprised if there isn't at least one notable person out of the 1,104 on List of Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia). Of the 34 recipients of the Commendation for Gallantry listed in the "It's an Honour" database, many have not yet had their names released (which, as is intended, makes it "difficult" to identify them!) Regarding Cross of Valour (Australia), I'll do some more investigating before commenting further. Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and populate -- These are national awards. I would suggest that the award may be sufficient to make the recipients notable by virtue of having the award. Certainly, any person awarded the Victoria Cross or George Cross in UK would be notable due merely to that award. Such medals are given very sparingly, so that we should not expect a large population. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This will just lead to even more overcategorization by award. We do not need this. We really need to massively go on a purging of awards. We allow way, way way too many. Look at Douglas MacArthur he is currently in 32 awards categories. He is probably not even the extreme in the number of awards. We need to start massively cutting out awards categories, they are messing things up. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 2nd one only as very unlikely to make a recipient notable on its own (as said above, roughly equivalent to MID, it is a badge on a riband rather than a medal). CV is the highest Australian decoration for civilian bravery (equiv to George Cross), recipients are highly likely to meet WP:GNG, and they are appropriately redlinked in the article IMO. Most have been featured in multiple newspaper and magazine articles over the years since their awards, and it is a matter of time until a WP article is written on them. The BM is third in the civilian bravery honours list in Aust, less likely to make the person notable on its own, although many recipients are interviewed by newspapers and so on, and may meet WP:GNG on that basis. I agree with BHG in respect of the 1st and 3rd ones, do not delete them. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:26, 12 September 2013 (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:Gateway ancestors

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) 19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is described as "A critical ancestor through whom many descendants can trace their ancestry."". "many" is subjective and I'm not sure that having many descendents is really a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. For info: There is currently no article about gateway ancestors. DexDor ( talk) 05:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gateway ancestors are by definition WP:notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (Note: User:Kittybrewster is the Category creator.) Cgingold ( talk) 10:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - While there is perhaps a good case to be made for having such a category, I must say I am flummoxed by the use it has been put to. Neither of the 2 articles currently included is about an individual who is him or herself a so-called "gateway ancestor". Rather, they are about people who happen to be descendants of such individuals. Which is to say, it would be better termed as ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Descendants of gateway ancestors -- something that would surely not pass muster. I am surprised and mystified that an experienced editor such as yourself would make such a puzzling error in the application of categories; what were you thinking, Kittybrewster? Cgingold ( talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
    Coment. I see no merit in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Descendants of Gateway ancestors. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – I don't see how we can have a category without a head article, and I very much doubt that 'gateway ancestor' can be properly defined. 'Descendants of gateway ancestors' would presumably be an enormous category. Oculi ( talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete Reading up on "gateway ancestor" shows that it it is always contextual; it is the gateway into a particular group. For example, to claim membership in the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne you need to trace a line back to one of the established descendants of the emperor, and those descendants are the "gateway ancestors" to showing that someone else is also a descendant. Therefore there is no abstract category of gateway ancestors any more than there is a category of things that are west. In references to the example group they publish a list of gateway ancestors so that there is a certain arbitrariness to the category— not that anyone may be included, but that not all possible ancestors may be listed (considering that descent from any member of the society is presumably sufficient to qualify for membership as well). Seyasirt ( talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- A gateway ancestor is a person whose ancestry is available in readily available genealogical sources. That ancestor is usually someone connected to nobility and royalty and thus provides a gateway for a genealogist to be able to trace many more ancestors. Being a gateway ancestor from somebody else cannot be notable. At present the category has two members. One is an American who has a gateway ancestor called John Throckmorton, who is not even linked in the article. The other is a Dutch noble, who happens to be the gateway ancestor for the present Swedish royal family (who only became royal in the 1800s). This is quite clearly utterly random and thus no adequate basis for a category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I note that gateway ancestor is a redlink, suggesting it isn't even a notable term. I certainly don't think it's a defining characteristic for categorising people by. If the nominator's description - 'a critical ancestor through whom many descendants can trace their ancestry' - is taken literally, this would belong on thousands of pages, as most historical royals and leaders would qualify. Robofish ( talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is not defining to the people involved. Generally we try to limit categories to things that happened to people during their life, not how they are used as intermediaries in larger studies of ancestry. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:42, 14 September 2013 (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:Non-qualifying Indianapolis 500 drivers

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 (because users have expressed interest in creating a list, this will be placed at WP:CFDWM. The category will be deleted once the list has been created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is for: "Drivers that have entered and/or attempted to qualify for the Indianapolis 500, but have never qualified in their entire career, includes drivers that were either bumped, too slow, or incomplete qualifying attempt. Also includes drivers that participated in Rookie Orientation only, as well as drivers that withdrew during practice, or participated in practice, but did not make a qualifying attempt.". That may just be suitable inclusion criteria for a list, but it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for a category - racing drivers are (in the long term) notable for what they have achieved. The "have never qualified in their entire career" is ambiguous - does it mean career-to-date in which case this is a non-permanent characteristic, or does it mean entire career in which case articles shouldn't go in the category until there is no possibility of the driver ever qualifying ? Note: There is no tree of "Non-qualifiers" categories for this to fit under. DexDor ( talk) 04:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We should never categorise anyone by what they have not achieved. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Lugnuts. We don't categorise people by what they are not. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per previous remarks, and possibly convert to a List. If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, I believe there was a category that was created & deleted many years ago for people who had run for political office but had failed to win election. Perhaps in the near future, a category for failed Indy 500 drivers who also failed to win election?? :) Cgingold ( talk) 10:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Agree to Delete but Convert to List The category may seem "insignificant" to those not directly familiar with the topic, and may seem as a meaningless list of "non achievers," but that is deceiving to the topic at hand, as due to the nature of qualifying at the Indianapolis 500 numerous notable (per WP Nobility guidelines) participants do fail to qualify, and failure to qualify is a significant story. Per precident at List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race, I would not necessarily have a problem with the category going away, but instead converting it to a list (the length is significant enough already...117, and that actually represents an abridged list, as not all names are known). Doctorindy ( talk) 13:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the info you've provided. As I indicated, I'm open to having this converted to a list, and knowing that there is an analagous list for Formula One drivers bolsters the case for doing so. Do you know if there are any other comparable lists for other major races? Cgingold ( talk) 00:18, 12 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11&oldid=1138398759"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE