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. Just in passing, there doesn't seem to be an established convention for this—some use "members" and some use "participants". Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. Merge in either direction. DexDor (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to participants. Scope is clearly the same. SFB 18:54, 8 September 2014 (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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn'. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Regions of Iran there are currently only 5 administrative regions and they are numbered rather than named. So all the regions in Category:Regions of Iran must be historical regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many of the articles are not about regions of Iran used administratively but geographically, meteorologically, touristically, or whatever. Akin to saying the Gulf Coast, Great Basin (categorized in Category:Regions of the Western United States), or Midwest (categorized in Category:Regions of the United States), are "Historical regions of the US", though never used administrative yet still exist (hence, not historical as in only the past). Too many things are being categorized under this cat, but a rename does nothing to fix that but only adds inaccuracy to inexactness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I've checked each article individually (should have done that earlier), there's e.g. two ethnic regions among them. I'm okay to withdraw the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the distinction is between "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism" -- do we really need separate categories here? If this merge is approved, all articles and subcategories relating to specific organizations should also be moved to Category:Jihadist organizations. GCarty (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merging, maybe rather reverse the merge in order not to confuse the category with Jihad. Terrorism sounds as the clearest term anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is For the distinction between the two categories, read the main article of each. No argument is presented as to why these categories should be merged at all. Islamic terrorism is a subset of Jihadism as the Jihadism article makes clear. Hmains (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that much of the content of the category is about terrorism, apparently for many editors who categorize the term jihadism is ambiguous. The entries that don't relate to terrorism can be put in the parentCategory:Jihad just as well. To avoid the same ambiguity here, I would suggest to rename the parent into Category:Jihad (religious). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jihad means "struggle" and can be properly used for many kinds of struggle, not merely for holy war (or as I would see it - unholy war). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jihad is not a form of terrorism and covers a variety of types of struggle. SFB 18:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should also acknowledge that Jihad and (i think to an ever greater extent) Jihadism have become associated with terrorism in the last few years, as is also explained in Jihadism. In order to keep account of both the original meaning of Jihad and of recent developments, see my alternative proposal of two paragraphs ago. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jihadism is a highly loaded and problematic word. The original term, jihad, simply means struggle and is one of the pillars of Islam. However, it has been increasingly used by non-Muslims to mean Islamic extremism. I far prefer "Islamic terrorism" - it is specific enough given that various organisations have at various times "designated" organisations to be "terrorist". I would prefer Jihadism to be merged into Islamic terrorism. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. I essentially agree with Hmains that there is a distinction. Jihadism refers to armed struggle or war while terrorism is a tactic that is often used today by most Jihadists. There are articles for both categories that clarify the term. Both categories are needed. The Category:Jihad is even more general as Jihad can refer to the "greater jihad" meaning struggle or "lesser jihad" meaning armed struggle. It is clear from English usage that Jihadism refers to that latter. Particular POV that reflects a limited usage of the word by some adherents should not be a determining factor. Sources use both terms and make a distinction in classification. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2014 (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.
Delete Category is a collection of various biographies and events under the reign of Khosrau II. There are better ways to structure this (e.g. Family of Khosrau II, Category:7th-century Iranian people). SFB 19:02, 8 September 2014 (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. Well, this was an interesting discussion if nothing else. It was very tempting to close this discussion as one that simply needed to be aborted because of it being hopelessly compromised by some obvious off-site campaigning/votestacking and possible sock/meat puppetry, but instead I've done the harder job of picking through the discussion, casting out the dross that needs to be tossed, and holding onto and considering the rest.
First, most editors (on both sides) who seemed to have a grasp of the issues involved recognised that WP:OC#AWARD is a relevant guideline here. I didn't find the arguments that attempted to distinguish between an "award" and an "honour" to be particularly helpful or insightful. Guidelines are meant to address particular issues in generalised terms rather than super-specific ones, and WP:OC#AWARD sets out the context of what it's referring to by stating: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives." So I think it's fair to say that the rest of the guideline applies to both awards and honours.
Having established that and putting aside issues of how much an editor loves or hates this category's existence (which are largely irrelevant issues that far too many of the comments focused on), the issue comes down to whether or not this particular honour is an exception to the general rule in the guideline that we should not categorize by award or honour. To be an exception, the guideline states that the award or honour has to be "a defining characteristic" for the people who have received it.
I think that this is the real bottom-line issue here, and a surprisingly small number of the participants on either side mentioned this issue. Fewer still presented supporting arguments to back up their claim that this honour either was or was not defining. It's not enough to simply make an assertion about this—a user needs to explain why. On the "keep" side, there were some assertions that the honour is indeed defining, but apart from these assertions, no one provided any evidence that this honour falls within what is meant by "defining": "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having": see WP:CATDEF. On the "delete" side, some evidence was produced to back up the claim that it is not defining. For instance, a few editors mentioned that an assessment of articles in the category revealed that in a majority of cases, the honour was not even mentioned in the category text, and in other cases, when it was mentioned, it was not in the lead of the article or otherwise prominent within it, and thus, judging by Wikipedia's biography of the individuals (which should be based on reliable sources), the honour is unlikely to be defining for those individuals.
I find the arguments of those in favour of deletion to be far more persuasive on this issue. Some of them have provided some reasons to justify their claim that the honour is not a defining characteristic. Some of those in favour of keeping the category have asserted that it is defining but have provided nothing comparable to back up that claim. So I think it makes sense in this case to apply the guideline and to delete the category, since it hasn't been demonstrated that this is an honour that falls within the exception to the general rule. Or, stated another way, I feel that it has been demonstrated that this is an honour that probably does not fall within the exception.
Just for clarity (since some editors with a relatively low amount of exposure to Wikipedia appear to have been involved in the discussion), this closure not mean (1) that the honour is not a notable honour, (2) that List of Worldcon Guests of Honor should not continue to exist, or (3) that the honour cannot or should not be mentioned in the recipients' biographical articles. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which would have to be manually updated for every Worldcon, unlike a category which automatically updates and alphabetizes with the tag. Glennglazer (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does a category automatically update ? DexDor (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is much quicker to update 1 list than to update all the individual articles with a mention of this factoid + the addition of a category. (Of course one cannot add a category which is not supported by the text of the article.) Oculi (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale is incorrect. Being a Worldcon Guest of Honor is not an award. Glennglazer (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous edit 12 Jan 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as while being named a World Science Fiction Convention's Guest of Honor is a defining characteristic in a science fiction professional or fan's career, it is not an award. (The convention does hand out actual awards.) Rationale is errant. - Dravecky (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is an honor, not an award. Individuals from a variety of areas (authors, artists, publishers, editors, musicians, fans, astronauts) have been so honored and the category provides a concise methods of seeing who had received the honor. Even if it were an award, there are plenty of categories such as "Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film) winners" or "Best Actor Academy Award winners," so nominator's claim that we "don't categorize based on awards" is specious at best. Shsilver (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes when I need to look up a writer for research purposes this can help. --RainbowWarrior71 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No previous edits. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This provides a handy reference for not picking people a second time; what is Wikipedia other than a reference? Besides it seems some people are engaging in a war on SF Categories on Wikipedia. This really has to stop as it is wasting a lot of peoples' time and takng away from positive work that could be done on Wikipedia. Paradoox (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bottom line, is it Notable? And the answer is Yes. The World Science Fiction Convention is a major long time ongoing enterprise in the field of Science Fiction Literature, it acts as a major influence in that community, and recognition of its members as Guests of Honor is the community saying those people are Notable in some way. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is an issue with an article. It has no place in determining the need for a category. Articles need to be notable. Categories need to be defining. So this effectively becomes an WP:ILIKEIT opinion. Does anyone else get the impression that here might be a violation of WP:CANVASS here? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6 previous edits in 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many science fiction professionals, and more than a few Big Name Fans, are not highly regarded enough ever to have received this honor. Within the science fiction community, this is a distinction reserved for a comparative few. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Category is relevant. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some sort of online crowd-sourced encyclopedia where we could reference useful information? Avt tor (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2 previous edits in 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Science Fiction Convention is a major event for the science fiction community and has a 70 year long history. The guest of honor list is a salient fact of history to those of us who consider Science Fiction Literature a significant part of their life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelspag50 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 previous edit. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked a sample of articles in this category and not one of them mentioned this in the article text - i.e. it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Fine for a list, but not for a category. DexDor (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, since I just checked a sample of articles in this category and found about 40% of the ones I checked mentioned this in the article text. However, I'd submit that if it isn't mentioned in the article text it is because most of them have done so much in their careers to merit this honor that the honor isn't quite as important as what they did to earn it, however, that would make the inclusion as a category even more important since it captures the pertinent information in a simple, easy to locate way for each honoree.Shsilver (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is a reason to delete. This award kind of follows a number of awards which may well be defining. So this becomes just another award and is not defining to the persons career. If this is important, then retaining a list is all that is needed. Being an honor is very different then something that is defining. You need to show why this reward is defining to a persons career and that it is not anything but acknowledging that the person has received many awards. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is less than an award and is not defining. Oculi (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with User:Michaelspag50 on this ... as an active fan who has been to two Worldcons, both in Toronto. GoH is an honour, accorded to someone prominent in the field who in turn makes a significant contribution to the convention by participating in discussion panels, expositions, etc; GoHdom is an important part of fannish culture. Brashley46 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last edit in 2012. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is important to a lot of people, and a significant honor within the field. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 previous edit in 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I fear that many of the people who have commented have not understood the nom. Thei is not to delete all refernece to ther honour from WP. However this falls precisely within the ambit of WP:OC#AWARD, despite perhaps not being literally an award. The outcome should be a list article naming the people honoured. A list can dpo the job better than a category, becasue it can say when and why. Lists are usually in date order. Categories can only be alphabetic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this interpretation of "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." because this is one of those exceptions that the parenthetical phrase refers to. As noted, this is not an award, it is a defining characteristic of those who have reached the pinnacle of their field and thus is not in the ambit of WP:OC#AWARD. Glennglazer (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2 previous edits in 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really love to hear the logic for that close of keep. I'm not convinced that the close was correct. No consensus could make sense. But strength of augments to support a keep there was very, very, very weak! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 previous edit in 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And? That does not make this defining. Exactly how did the list not help you? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Since Worldcon Guests of Honour are expected to participate in the event and provide a talk or speech as part of their duties, this category is analogous to the List of TED speakersKentpollard (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2 previous edits in 2014. Oculi (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- The frequency of a person's editing on Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether their opinion is valid. Defacing the page with edit counts is unhelpful and unwarranted. Glennglazer (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Consensus is developed by strength of arguments and not frequency of posting. If the latter were true, then my opinion would win most arguments. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn award, or perhaps more aptly: performer by performance (akin to "Hosts of the Oscars" or "Superbowl half time performers", which are routinely axed). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An award or an honor is merely a recognition of what a person did or was, and we should categorize by what the person did or was, not by the recognition of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Voted above) I still say, that this is in the nature of an award winner's category. I suspect we have canvassing here, of people who are not familiar with WP:OC#AWARD. The Nobel Prize and awards by nations are exceptions. This honour is not nearly sugnificant enough to fall within the exception. Lists do the job much better, becasue they can be chronological. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One has to assume there was a lot of interest here from a campaign. I gave ample chances for some logic on the keep votes, but nothing every came about. The is a clear case for deleting the category based on the rules and guidelines in place along with the many consensus deletes for other honor based categories like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thought my logic, and that of many other participants was clear: being named a Worldcon Guest of Honor is a "defining characteristic" for these science fiction professionals and fans which is the explicit exception to WP:OC#AWARD. That others have chosen to cherry-pick from the guideline rather that read it in whole defies logic, not the opposite. (And the nominator's rationale ("We don't categorize based on awards.") is both simply untrue and counter to the guidelines.) - Dravecky (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked quite a few articles, in most cases this honor is being mentioned in just one line in the body text, in some it's in the header of the article as well, in some it's not mentioned in the article at all. I wouldn't consider this to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (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.
Support -- It may be useful sometimes to split the English high medieval into Norman and Plantaganet periods, but there is no purpose in having a category implying that Norman is not medieval. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (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.
