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. MER-C 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The film articles in this category should be purged, we do not categorize films by the actors in them. That just leaves the articles List of Waheed Murad songs, Rani (actress) and Waheed Murad filmography, which I contend does not justify having a category. Tassedethe (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to include every article that links to Waheed Murad, which isn't defining. No objection to recreating later if 5 or so directly related articles are created. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is roughly about the 19th and 20th century which is considered to be "modern" history rather than "contemporary" history (see also tree of Category:Modern history by country). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match the parent Category:Modern history by country. The correct term is Modern history, while "contemporary" is a relative word used for other periods as well. Brandmeistertalk 14:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on Contemporary history in particular, in fact I'm not sure if this tree is helpful at all. With Modern history it is clearer, this is quite consistently categorizing the 19th, 20th and 21st century together. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. 18th and 19th century are Modern history, not contemporary. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated, for consistency reasons, without prejudice against a wider rename nomination to the format of Category:Foocity council elections. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category includes elections to the previous body, Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council. The proposed renaming would narrow the scope, with no evident benefit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support To bring it in line with almost all other 400+ British council election categories. I completely disagree that renaming "narrows the scope"; this ignores the fact that categories are supposed to be named after the current name of the article/organisation (i.e. Wolverhampton City Council/Wolverhampton City Council elections), ignores the fact that multiple other categories use the current name (e.g. Category:Preston City Council elections), and ignores the fact that there is not, nor has ever been any such organisation as "Wolverhampton Council". Number57 08:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: This is not in line with the standard naming format for council elections in the UK (as you can see by the remaining content in that category – Wolverhampton and Sheffield are the only two not named as standard). Number57 12:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pick out Category:Solihull Council elections and see that they are all metropolitan borough elections, so I would query the reliability of any names in this tree. Oculi (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi:There are a handful of councils whose categories are still incorrectly named (almost all MBCs), which I was slowly correcting using the CSD process until this one was blocked. See Category:District council elections in England for further (>200) examples. Number57 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the danger of using CSD for a big process. Much better to start by testing consensus, rather than discovering much further down the track that consensus is not what you assumed it might be. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was developed by several discussions with editors who work on local election articles as to how the incorrect titles could be remedied. Number57 14:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any links to the CFDs? Because that is where consensus is formed on category names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there were no CFDs, it was an organic process of constructive discussions on the topic. But I strongly disagree with your claim about where consensus is formed. Category names are supposed to reflect article names, so in many cases, CFDs are entirely irrelevant to what the consensus is. Number57 14:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on both counts.
Private discussions do not create a broader consensus -- such discusisons are not flagged up for the attention of other editors.
Category names reflect article names for some types of categories. For many many others, a standardised descriptive format is used. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not wrong at all, otherwise WP:C2D wouldn't exist. Number57 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very wrong. Please readWP:C2D, rather than just namechecking it. It is for topic categories, but this is a set category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both need to read it, as you're also using WP:C2D to rename set categories! Number57 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am using it for homogeneous sets, unambiguously relating to the same entity. It's a stretch of C2D which seems to be regularly accepted, but you are trying to use it for diverse sets. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my final comment re wikilawyering. Number57 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is all about consensus, not wikilawyering. Isn't the lack of support for your view hinting to you that just perhaps this might not be as back-and-white as you would like it to be? As I noted below, if you don't understand the distinction between the types of category, then oppose those speedy noms and I will bring them to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, it turns out there was a CfD on this type of renaming, and it was approved without opposition. Also worth noting the editor who started that discussion! Number57 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, that hardly supports your argument. That category only contained articles about "Bristol City Council" so wasn't controversial in any way. Sionk (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this category only contains articles about Wolverhampton City Council (remember, it's the same organisation). Number57 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If articles start to appear on pre-1974 Bristol elections, we'll need to revisit the categorsiation of that city's elections. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Wolverhampton became a city about 15 years ago, but its extent is the same as the previous MBC, which was the same as the preceding County Borough. I am not sure if the county borough was expanded by the incorporation of adjoining urban districts in 1965 reforms. I see no reason in principle why they should not all be in the same category, with the changes in name being covered in a headnote. That is what we do for alumni categories of renamed or merged colleges, sometimes with slightly odd results. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename instead to Category:Wolverhampton council elections, per Oculi's proposal. I suppose in effect this is an "Oppose" to the current rename proposal. These are elections in the city of Wolverhampton (though a city only since 2000). The category also includes elections that weren't to a city council. Sionk (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: It is exactly the same council as before, just renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Number57 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A one-size-fits-all approach is unnecessary here. In this case the elections definitely weren't city council elections before 2000. It's not semantics, just pragmatic common sense. There's no preclusion to the category remaining in its existing higher level cats, of course. Sionk (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: But it is semantics. There is no such thing in the UK as a "city council", so thete have never been "city council elections" in Wolverhampton. Wolverhampon City Council is a metropolitan borough council that currently goes under the WCC name. Number57 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing (or seconding) a different name change, so you need to make this point to somebody else. Sionk (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making the point to you because you claimed in your original rationale that "The category also includes elections that weren't to a city council", yet there is no such thing as a city council. I appreciate that local government may be baffling to outsiders, but the council is a metropolitan borough council that was previously named Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council and is now named Wolverhampton City Council – it is the same organisation, just with a name change. In every other sphere of Wikipedia that I am aware of, categories are named after the current name of the subject; for instance, footballers who played for Manchester United when it was still called Newton Heath F.C. are included in Category:Manchester United F.C. players; Category:Elections in Myanmar includes articles on elections when the country was called Burma; and (as alluded to by Peterkingiron above) people who graduated from Leningrad State University are in Category:Saint Petersburg State University alumni. Number57 00:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that there are two misunderstandings behind this nomination:
That the formal title of the council is its WP:COMMONNAME. In practice, the common usage for most is "Foo Council" rather than using the full title listing the type of council, and many councils style themselves according that to that short common name. So in common usage, it's "Lambeth Council" (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/) rather than "Lambeth London Borough Council", and "Wakefield Council" (http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/) rather than "Wakefield Metropolitan District Council".
Many areas had previous councils before the current entities. The descriptive name allows the category to include elections to both the current council and to previous councils in the area. In the example of Southwark, it includes election to the current "Southwark London Borough Council", but also to the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, and the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark.
User:Number 57's proposal is made in good faith after other similar moves, but I believe that this excessive precision is mistaken because it leaves no place for elections before the current councils were created. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I believe BrownHairedGirl is mistaken in two of her three claims above:
Regarding the claim that the category name "leaves no place for elections before the current councils were created"; the councils created in the early 1970s are successors to those of the late 19th century, and in places where excessive re-organisation did not take place (as is the case in London), are effectively the same organisation. This means there is no problem at all in having them in the same category. It is also worth noting that the article on Wolverhampton City Council covers the entire history of the various guises of the council all the way back to 1777.
Regarding the common name issue (a) in this case the common name is Wolverhampton City Council; compare Wolverhampton Council (44,500 hits) with Wolverhampton City Council (224,000 hits), and (b) common name should not be an issue for category names – they should simply match the title of the contents, which was the rationale for the renaming presented by Armbrust.
Many articles contain a history section which mentions their predecessors. That doesn't alter the fact that their predecessors were not the same body. What exactly is the purpose of unneccessarily creating these anachronisms? What problem is being solved?
Your point about matching title to contents is exactly the one I have been trying to persuade you to see. In this case, the contents are not exclusively elections to Wolverhampton City Council; most of them are elections to Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council. So if the name is to reflect the contents, WMBC would be the title to use. Better, however, to use neutral descriptive terminology: Category:Wolverhampton council elections. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this already above: Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council and Wolverhampton City Council are the same organisation – the council was just renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Thus the contents are exclusively limited to elections to this single organisation (and this is also why I gave the example above about Manchester United players). Number57 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were council elections in Wolverhampton before 1974, which were to a separate body. What exactly is your problem with using an all-inclusive descriptive title as suggested by Oculi? That option is not open to the football club categories, which is why yoir analogy is misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that we use the current name of the council to categorise elections for almost all local authorities in the UK, and it would be good to get some consistency on category naming. "Wolverhampton council elections" is a needlessly vague title that does not match the main article for the category. Number57 14:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit silly. You do a long series of moves outside the consensus-forming processes, and then claim that your unilateral actions have created a convention.
So I'll ask again: What exactly is your problem with using an all-inclusive descriptive title as suggested by Oculi? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there were several discussions about appropriate titles for council election articles, and categories are supposed to match these. My problem with the proposal of "Wolverhampton council elections" is that it's unnecessarily imprecise when we have the main topic located at Wolverhampton City Council elections. It's also just a terrible name generally; "Council elections in Wolverhampton" would be far better, but for the benefit of the discussion closer, I should note that I am strongly opposed to both. Number57 14:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can do better than a vague wave to some discussions, somewhere, with no links?
One of the problems is your concern that '"Wolverhampton council elections" is unnecessarily imprecise'. See WP:PRECISION: when disambiguating, we don't go more precise than needed. Why in this case do you seek un-needed precision?
You say that you are "strongly opposed" to "Council elections in Wolverhampton". I get that, but is there any reason founded in policy or guidelines for your strong opposition, or is that just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was obvious by now given that I've repeatedly stated it, but my opposition to the alternatives is founded in the convention that the category title should match the main article title, which is why I took it to WP:CFDS in the first place. The IDONTLIKEIT claim is rather unnecessary, and just seems designed to delegitimise my opinion Number57 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As above, you failed to read WP:C2D. It refers to topic categories; this is a set category. -- BrownHairedGirl 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that is true. However, the wording appears to be widely ignored by pretty much everyone, including yourself as you have several nominations at present for what are clearly set categories (e.g. Category:St. Anthony's F.C. players and Category:Films directed by John Mackenzie) using the same WP:C2D rationale. But anyway, the convention that categories should be named after their main article still exists for set categories (which you yourself are in the midst of proving), even if we are not allowed to use the speedy process to make the move. Number57 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am using it for homogeneous sets, unambiguously relating to the same entity. It's a stretch of C2D which seems to be regularly accepted, but the distinction which you refuse to acknowledge (no matter how many times it is pointed out to you) is that you are trying to use it for diverse sets which do not all fit under the same proper name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, they are still set categories, and I find your attitude incredibly hypocritical. I think as we're reduced to this level of wikilawyering, there's no point in continuing. For the final record, I don't believe the potential articles are too diverse to fit into a renamed category. Number57 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As BrownHairedGirl says, you made a unilateral decision about the name of the Wikipedia article (which you changed) and then using that to justify your argument that the current category "does not match the main article for the category" (your words above). The question of how precise a Wikipedia article or category name need to be is exactly the one which needs to concern us here. If necessary the article name can be changed back, or to something better. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I be quite clear here – this renaming/moving is not something unilaterally done by myself – it was being done by other editors in this topic area too; e.g. [1][2].[3][4]Number57 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I see a distinction, but you refuse to recognise it. That's up to you ... but if you consider my use of C2D to be inappropriate, then pop along to WP:CFD and oppose my nominations there. Then we can have a full discussion about at CFD. Your call. --BrownHairedGirl 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not about refusing to recognise something (implying deliberately being awkward), it's simply disagreeing that it exists. I could be a complete arse and oppose your use of C2D, but we all know that this is how C2D normally works; it's just sad that you would try and claim otherwise to try and prove a point. Number57 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you don't acknowledge its existence. So how come several other editors are independently disagreeing with you? Doesn't that suggest to you in any way that this case is a little different, even you don't see accept the significance of that difference? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, how come several other editors are independently agreeing with me? It's not really a very reasonable question to ask when the debate is a 50/50 split. By the way, I had a look in the CfD archives to see if there had been any previous discussions about category renaming to match the "Foo City Council elections" titles, and it turns out there was. It's rather interesting to see who started that discussion ;) Number57 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. There is consensus here on changing from the current name, but disagreement over the new name, either Category:Wolverhampton City Council elections which would match all the siblings and the lead article, or Category:Wolverhampton council elections to recognise that the current article name only matches the latest few members of the contents. IMHO the latter does not amount to a strong enough reason to break a consistent pattern. – FayenaticLondon 20:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 20:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category includes elections to the various predecessors of Sheffield City Council. The proposed renaming would narrow the scope, with no evident benefit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support To bring it in line with almost all other 400+ British council election categories. I completely disagree that renaming "narrows the scope"; this ignores the fact that categories are supposed to be named after the current name of the article/organisation (i.e. Sheffield City Council/Sheffield City Council elections), ignores the fact that multiple other categories use the current name (e.g. Category:Preston City Council elections), and ignores the fact that there is not, nor has ever been any such organisation as "Sheffield Council". Number57 08:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: This is not in line with the standard naming format for council elections in the UK (as you can see by the remaining content in that category – Wolverhampton and Sheffield are the only two not named as standard). Although the pre- and post-1973 councils are not legally the same entity, they are de facto the same organisation, so I still disagree this is a scoping problem. Number57 12:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Sheffield has been a city since 1893. Those articles for the 1960s are titled "municipal" but they were for the city, so that there is no problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renameto Category:Sheffield council elections, as suggested by Oculi above. I don't quite understand the intricacies of Sheffield politics, but I see the Sheffield municipal borough elections have only been styled "City Council" elections sinc 1973. Prior to this they weren't City Council elections. Though other categories such as Category:Leeds City Council elections may need to be moved to a more embracing name (it was speedily renamed earlier this month). Sionk (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: The 1973 local government reforms were a reorganisation of local government and the current council is effectively a continuation of the previous one (all elections back to 1891 are covered in Sheffield City Council elections). The category needs renaming in line with the current name of the council, as standard. Number57 00:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current proposal (or general rule-of-thumb) doesn't make sense to me therefore I stand by my point. These are elections in the city of Sheffield, but not all Sheffield City Council elections. Sionk (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: Actually, they are all City Council elections – I've just realised that the pre-1973 articles are misnamed – the council was also named "Sheffield City Council" before the reforms (see e.g. here and here (the sources of the articles). I've now renamed them, so all the articles in the category are "Sheffield City Council elections". Number57 01:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fancy that. And I do agree that judging from copies of the sources "Sheffield City Council" is used as a description in several of the earlier sources. Okay, for Sheffield this rename is not controversial. Sionk (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They were 'municipal elections' in 1960. And in 1967. So the renaming has been hasty and should be reversed. Oculi (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: The name of the council was Sheffield City Council since at least 1932 (and I suspect since the city was granted that status in 1893), so the articles are correctly named (see also this 1967 article which makes it clear that it was called "Sheffield City Council" in that year too). Number57 02:59, 31 December 2015 (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. While not requested here, deletion seems to the consensus here. I will add the note suggested but I don't consider it as part of the close for this discussion since Category:Mandarin-language singers had no notification for here so people are free to revise or revert that without DRV or anything about it. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unlike Korea, China has many languages. Mandarin, Cantonese are both prominent, while ethnic Tibetan, etc singers also exist. Regional Chinese dialects feature singers of the local dialects. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a restriction on parent category. This is the way we do such with singers. Unfortunately there is still work needed in actually applying such restrictions in actual categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (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.
ABC World News Tonight runs a 3-minute feel-good profile of an inspirational person on Friday just before the weekend (link). There is no main article on this subject, this isn't a competitive award, and none of the articles I looked at even mentioned this honor.- RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I came to this topic area previously because of a previous AFD about a person/organization that had received the honor. In the course of that AFD, I figured out that ABC Person of the Week (then and currently a redlink) appears to be a valid Wikipedia article topic. See the AFD. I drafted Draft:ABC Person of the Week but did not develop it very far, and I have not yet submitted it for mainspace. For the lesser-known persons named by ABC Person of the Week, the honor is important and is worth mentioning in their articles. For others who are already prominent (e.g. Caroline Kennedy), the honor may be relatively unimportant and need not be mentioned in their articles. I was thinking it would be reasonable to apply the category to articles for all persons identified (with citations) in the list at ABC Person of the Week article, although I may have been wrong about that. Anyhow anywhere the category would appear, a reader should be able to get to article itself, which will appear first in the category. I see that the CFD nomination is in good faith given that the article is only in draft-space. But the list and corresponding category are parts of a work-in-progress, in effect, where I believe there is overall notability. It is appropriate for the category to complement the list; see wp:CLT. I should get back to developing this a bit, and/or others could help out. --doncram 03:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Based on your invitation, I tried to help with your draft article by adding categories, alphabetizing the list, carving out section headers and re-arranging content. (If any of my changes were not helpful, just undo them.) I hope that gets the list article going! RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines as mentioned by BrownHairedGril, no opinion about listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (if necessary) then Delete -- It is a performance by performer category (if interviewed) or an award category (if not). In either case we do not like such. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial award...like best album of the year by each radio station hosting such a program at year end. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a notable topic is not anywhere near the threshold for awards being defining to those who receive them. There are thousands of awards that are notable topics that are not worth categorizing the recipients by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2016 (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.
