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 ACTION. There is no need, nor authority, for CfD to 'authorise' the creation of a category. The passage of seven years since the original CfD and five years since the creation of this version of the category page means that, since consensus can change, it is not necessary to view a CfD from 2007 as legislation. What we have instead is a category created, populated, used and not facing even a nomination for deletion. Therefore, the prevailing consensus is that the category remains. -Splash - tk 23:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Restrict non-geographical categories in this tree for use as container categories, so that species should only be categorised by region/country within this tree; and reinstate those recently deleted at January_17#Category:Introduced saltwater fish. There was a decision to delete Category:Introduced species at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_23#Category:Introduced_Species, but the main objection seemed to be that species should not be categorised simply as "introduced/invasive species" without specifying the location. As it was subsequently re-created with sub-cats by location, I am therefore raising this CfD seeking a decision to authorise the un-deletion, with limitations on usage. – FayenaticLondon 17:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify all. I closed the January 17 CFD, which prompted FL to open a discussion on my talk. That's when I saw that I had also closed the May 2007 discussion. It seems to me that FL has misread the 2007 CFD. There was indeed a consensus that categorising species merely as "introduced" was a bit silly, because so many species have been introduced somewhere. However, FL seems to be reading this as a consensus that it would have been ok if sub-categorised by location; but I don't see any support for that idea. If it had been proposed, I am sure that somebody would have pointed to the horrendous category clutter it would have caused, and on those grounds I oppose it now. In the May 2007 discussion there was strong support for presenting this data in lists, which should be grouped in a Category:Lists of introduced species. That still seems to be the best approach, because many species have been introduced or invaded so many countries that the lost of invaded countries could be enormous. Consider for example Fallopia japonica (Janaese knotweed), one of the world's 100 most invasive plant species, distributed in every continent (see the "distribution" tab in its listing at the Invasive Species Compendium), yet we find it categorised in Category:Invasive plant species in Oregon. There would be massive clutter if it was categorised by country; once we get down to sub-national level, the clutter would be horrendous. There are already 12 lists of invasive species and 8 lists of introduced species. Those are enough to start list categories, which could be expanded by listifying the existing categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nomination. These categories should be restricted to articles specifically about introductions and their effects (e.g. articles like this, this, this and this) - not articles about species that may mention that the species has been introduced somewhere. The current category inclusion criteria appear to be trying to say that, but could probably be improved (perhaps with some examples), but not as per this CFD nomination. My plan has been to tackle this tree branch-by-branch (e.g. following the saltwater fish CFD - this CFD); attempting to do the whole lot in one go would make it more difficult to separate out the few articles that should remain in this category. A category rename (e.g. to "Human-facilitated introduction of animals to regions where they are not native" or something a bit shorter) might help to clarify that this should be a topic category, not a set category. DexDor (talk) 20:43, 27 January 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.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ[edit]
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, all member pages are recent recipients of the re-created Order rather than recipients of the historical Order following the time of Queen Tamar. It was the recent re-creation which was the main reason for counting the award as non-notable in the AfD. – FayenaticLondon 18:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a defining award. Awards need to be a lot more than notable for us to have categories for winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 30 January 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.
