Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28[edit]

Chase films[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.
The result of the discussion was: keep for now (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nominator's rationale: Doesn't appear to be a typically-recognized genre. I note the lack of a Chase film article, which leads me to question what the basis is for applying these categories. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF? I'll add it promptly. DonIago (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with additional category. DonIago (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Chase films because Google Books shows many results about chase films. Really, we should have a Wikipedia article about it, based on what I can see in the results. In particular, BFI lists "10 great chase films" here. Per category guidelines, the category should be verifiable in the article body and not be included otherwise. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - we don't need to have an article about a topic in order to have a cat of it. Jim Michael (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You probably should though if the inclusion criteria are unclear. A main article would help clarify the scope between chase films and films with a chase scene. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reliably sourced article about chase films certainly could and should be created. A large section of that would be about American chase films - which is why I believe the American subcat is valid as well. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to retract my nominations (though I don't know that I can do so procedurally) if we can agree that "chase film" is a legitimate genre and at least a barebones article (with some sources) can be established. If not, well, the nominations will probably fail anyway at this point, but I'd much rather have them fail on the grounds that we've established inclusion criteria for the cats. DonIago (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you do retract, all you have to do is state here to the effect that you would like to withdraw your nomination(s). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inaction is probably the best course at this time, if we can arouse sufficient interest in creating articles that recognize this as a genre. It certainly seems to have WP:THIRDPARTY support, and articles would go a long way towards addressing the issues raised here. If and only if Chase film cannot at least be merged into another article, say, as a subgenre of action film should we revisit the possibility of deleting these categories. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The term chase film does appear in sources, though I am not personally familiar with the definition. The book "D.W. Griffith and the Origins of American Narrative Film: The Early Years at Biograph" covers the chase films of the 1900s decade as having the following characteristics: "A character is chased by a group of characters from one location to the next. Each shot presents the chased character running at some distance from the pursuing mob. The shot is held until first the pursued, and then the pursuers exit from the frame. The next shot begins with the entrance of the pursued, and the movement through the frame begins all over again. This action continues through a series of shots until the fleeing character is captured." It cites several pages worth of examples and it seems to have been a popular genre of the time. I am just not certain if the term can be applied to more recent films. Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that that would be a pretty contentious definition, and would make maintaining the category a significant challenge, though it's certainly interesting. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are some films which are clearly chase films, for example The Chase (1994 film). Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should be careful to say what "clearly" is or is not, lest they inadvertently wander into the realm of original research. Far better to rely on reliable sources to make such a determination. DonIago (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Duce of the Italian Social Republic[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Whether or not the article Benito Mussolini belongs in Category:Heads of state of Italy may be subject of further discussion (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems unnecessary per WP:SMALLCAT, since there was only one. The only contents are Duce and Benito Mussolini. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to be a valid sub-category of Category:Heads of state of Italy; although I take your point that it is a bit on the small side. Twiceuponatime (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the category is deleted, then Benito Mussolini can be added to Category:Heads of state of Italy. I'm not saying the category is invalid, I'm just saying WP:SMALLCAT applies to it quite clearly. If kept, it should technically be pluralized, which kind of sets up an absurd situation: there was only one Duce, but we have a category for the position, so we need to pluralize the category name. But there was only ever one. It's situations like this that I think SMALLCAT was designed to avoid. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relevant bit in WP:SMALLCAT seems to be unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. It may be small but I don't think deleting it helps the overall scheme. I am inclined to go for keep. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think this is the type of "overall scheme" SMALLCAT is referring to. The types of schemes referred to are schemes for which there would be hundreds (flags by country) or thousands (albums by artist) of potential subcategories. That is not the case here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Heads of state of Italy. Italy was at that time a kingdom, but for about 18 months, Mussolini had a republic that was technically in rebellion against Rome - 1943 to 1945. There might in theory have been a replacement president from his killing on 27 April 1945 until the end of the war a short time later, but probably no one was appointed, as the state was in collapse. The Italian Social Republic was so short-lived that one category should be enough for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Il Duce cannot be added to Category:Heads of state of Italy as he was not the head of state; that would be King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colossal statues[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.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Colossal" is a vague term and even if we go by our consensus of it being "three times lifesize" the categorization per this is OVERCAT. We do not necessarily need large statues and small statues to be separated out like this. Suggest deletion and upmerging of the main Category:Colossal statues and all its subcats too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Very vague and weak arguments for deletion ("We do not necessarily need large statues and small statues to be separated out like this" - oh yes we do!) The size borderline is somewhat arbitary but reflects usage of the term in art history, where it is a standard term. It is extremely useful to keep these statues, mostly outdoors and well-known, at least locally, apart from the great mass of life size and smaller staues in museums and elsewhere. There is a whole tree - what do you propose doing about all the 8 sub-cats, developed over the nearly 10 years since the cat was started? I don't think this has been thought through, or is properly made; the sub-cats are mentioned for deletion but not included in the nom, which they would need to be. You don't think being 20+ foot high is defining for a statue??? In particular the statues of Buddha are a recognised and significant art historical genre from early periods onwards in Buddhist art, found wherever Buddhism is or has been a major religion; likewise with the Jain statues. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see on wiki or elsewhere any references to "colossal" being defined anywhere in art history. Please be aware that "Colossus" in Colossus of Rhodes and other such names is more a part of the statue's name and should be disregarded when considering if "colossal" is generically used to large statues. Like for example we do have Grand Buddha at Ling Shan and Great Buddha of Thailand and various other statues that use "Great" and "Grand" in their names but we do not have Category:Great statues or Category:Grand statues. Having stayed for 10 years and developed is no good to reason to keep either especially for a category where very few editors bother editing as compared to article space maybe. Nor is the grandness and greatness of Buddhism anything to do here. I do not see Buddhists or any other religions differentiating their statues by height and see no reason to take same analogy to non-religious statues or any statues for that matter.
I do consider that 20+ feet tall statue is notable and it can have its own article, be listed in List of tallest statues. But I do not see why an arbitrary line should be drawn to keep some statues in this category and some out of it. I do not see Category:Paintings and Category:Literature being subdivided on size. Yes, you may segregate statues based on their location or material of construction or era of construction or subjects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. "Colossal statue" is not a random adjective but a technical term in art history. See it being used by the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum, New York, the MFA Boston, and you can find over 250K more ghits. I can see why you did the nom if you weren't aware of this. I have added a redirect to Sculpture#Types_of_sculpture for the term - that article has 10 refs to "colossal" statues, including an explanation. Statue is a poor article as yet. You should also understand that "colossus" in Greek means a giant statue - all other applications of Colossus or colossal are figurative extensions of this meaning. The OED defines the meanings in English of colossal as "a. of a statue or human figure .... b. of anything vast or gigantic...." Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If it is a technical term and not adjective, it should be very well defined somewhere. There might be objections by experts on each other's definition but no one defining it is strange. Also, is colossal mostly or exactly just being used for old statues? Like maybe when statue-making was a tough job and hence calling it "colossal" when big was the best way to admire the work? Will Dignity (statue) (50ft), Pikachu (sculpture) (5ft) both recently created and comfortable 3-times of original also fall under this category? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Oxford Dictionaries online: "Colossal" 1.1 sculpture (of a statue) at least twice life size.
Examples:
‘Then, aged 26, he took on the seemingly impossible challenge of sculpting a colossal statue of the biblical hero, David, from one piece of flawed marble.’
‘Today, the colossal bronze statue of Atlas stands on the site of the Mills house.’
‘Standing in the shadows of the colossal statues in front of the twin temples of Abu Simbel, one can only feel humble by human ingenuity, both past and present.’
‘Stepping off the airplane and into the Houston humidity, the first sight I spotted was not my homesick sister Laura, but a colossal bronze statue of George H.W. Bush.’
‘Along with a colossal statue of Athena, bases for busts inscribed with the names of Homer, Herodotus and other noted literary figures were found here.’

I have added the 50 ft one to the category, but not the 5 ft one, though I suppose there is a case for that - how big is Pikachu exactly? You are not getting the point I have already explained. "Colossal" is not a general term of praise for the work involved, but a technical term relating purely to the size. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Being a term from art history but not one that is defined in an exact way (it's a true "term of art", as it were), perhaps if the category is kept we should do away with the category definition, which does come across as a little bit vague and arbitrary. In its place, we could just apply the category to an article about a statue whenever there are reliable sources that describe the statue as a "colossal". I can see that the category should probably exist, but I don't think WP should be applying the designation independent of sources that do so. Not sure if that is an existing issue for many articles or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how technical terms work, is it? Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should work, and if it doesn't work there is only one conclusion possible, namely that it's not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Technical terms usually have a more precise definition than the one I'm seeing in the category definition. As I said, it's more of a term of art than a technical term. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's at all true in the humanities, certainly not in art history. What does a "term of art" mean? Please define. I have quoted 3 sources below defining "colossal statues", and am happy to go to to that 2x definition. Obviously there is imprecision as no-one really knows the actual height of the kind of figures typically represented, whether Hercules, the Buddha, or Picachu. In fact the vast majority of articles in all the categories are well above a bottom limit of 2 or 3 x life-size. If there is a problem with the term and the category, it is that most people who read it don't realize that it is a term with a precise meaning but think it is just a vague term of appreciation, like "enormous". This is very clearly the case with the nominator. Hence the need for a note. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A main article is really needed here to define scope. I'm reluctant to delete these categories now because I think they can be viable but right now it is clearly WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Are there any members that you worry don't fit? Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know without a main article? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are now several dictionary definitions and wexamples quoted here. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The guideline in the headnote says three times: the problem is that that figure is a subjective one. The original of this was the Colossos of Rhodes. The question is ultimately whether we can find a robust (and accepted) definition as to the boundary between colossal and merely larger than life. I am insufficiently expert, but there could be the makings of a reasonable category here. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmph! It has been a highly effective small category tree for several years now. The original of this was not the Colossos of Rhodes - several centuries before that was made Herodotos described Egyptian statues as colossi, apparently the first surviving usage. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mayer, Dictionary of Art Terms and Techniques (1969) in fig. sculp., larger than 2x life-size.; colossal
"Ko­los­sal­fi­gur" is the German term for a colossal statue.

I can certainly write an article if necessary, or add to Sculpture or Statue. Johnbod (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: Collins online dictionary: Colossal "2. (in figure sculpture) approximately twice life-size." (not very good that).
This is the entry in the French national online dictionary, which has plenty of colossal statues, but no precise definition I can see.

Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A bunch of editors who have never heard of the term in question" Who is this "bunch" you are speaking of who you claim have never heard of the term? No one has said explicitly that they have never heard of the term, and I can only see one comment from one editor that could even be interpreted as a suggestion that they had never heard of the term, but even then, it takes a pretty big assumption to make that jump. I think you should not assume what users have and have not heard of. (Also, if "trying to HELP" is now something to be criticized in Wikipedia, we might as well fold up the tent and go home, since obviously perfection need not be improved.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by what people say. I'm certainly not saying WP is perfect, but a degree of tend-folding at CFD would be good for WP imo, as much of the fiddling with categories we see here and at articles has long become excessive and a net negative to the project, if you ask me. That's why I don't participate here at CFD as much as I used to. I might add that public sculpture has been a particular subject of arguably dubious & over-enthusiastic categorizing for some years, which makes it especially galling to find one sensible and useful group of categories in the field nominated, when the nomination clearly arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of the term. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the above, I have adjusted the definition to x2 life-size or more. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be a shame if an agreed position could not be found to keep this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While my first reaction was that this was not a good term, after reading through the discussion, I have come to see there is a general agreement that anything twice life size or more counts (although with many of the subjects of the statue the actual real life size is not known, so twice life size is always fuzzy). However there is clearly reliable source use of the term, so categorizing by it works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I have changed the redirect from Sculpture to Statue & added a sentence defining as x2, with the Collins & Getty refs. I'll do a seperate article some time. Since no-one has actually supported the nom in nearly a month, isn't it time to close? Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WWE tournaments[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.
The result of the discussion was: Keep and purge. Pinging the participants @Armbrust, RevelationDirect, and Marcocapelle:: please can you collaborate on the purging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or at least purge. Most of the articles in the category are not WWE tournaments, but rather pay-per-view events where tournaments took place/ended. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 28 December 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.

Purging done. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American conservative atheists[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Insignificant intersection of topics. Nothing is gained from rolling American conservatives and American atheists into a single category; it has no inherent advantage over using both such categories separately. It doesn't seem to me that conservatism and atheism really have anything to do with each other - there isn't a school of thought called "conservative atheism", for example. And is an atheist a conservative atheist by virtue of having certain conservative beliefs? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WE have many precedents for deleting categories for conservatives, liberals, etc, as depending on the editor's POV. The exception is where it depends on membership of a political party. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm presuming that this was created to counteract an assumption that all atheists are necessarily liberals — but "WP:DEFINING characteristic", not "proof that people exist who happen to contradict conventional wisdom", is what determines whether a category is appropriate or not, and the DEFINING test is not satisfied by this. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Indeed, Wikipedia does not strive to imply that anyone in a category for atheists that is not named "conservative atheists" is not politically conservative, the definition for which can also vary by country. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’m not versed enough in the rules and protocols for Category deletion, so I’ll just tell you my rationale for creating the category. I’m not trying to “counteract an assumption” even though atheists are usually presumed to be liberal. It’s really just for encyclopedic knowledge. If someone were actually asking the question “hmmm… who are some prominent atheist conservatives?” sure, someone could look at a gigantic category like American atheists and then another gigantic category like American conservatives and then take the time to painstakingly cross-reference them to find the exceedingly small number of people who belong to both. But why? For this reason this category most definitely does have an inherent advantage over using both such categories separately. The criteria for inclusion are easily verifiable. I could understand the argument that Category:American liberal atheists would quickly become unwieldy, but this American conservative atheists category is likely to remain a pretty small group. I don’t understand the harm of just letting it be. It has encyclopedic value. Hraefen Talk
One problem is that we don't have Category:American conservatives, just as we don't have Category:American liberals. So the argument that individuals can be tagged as both atheist and conservative is a moot point. The size of the category is not particularly relevant unless we're talking a category that is guaranteed to have so few members, usually two or three (or of course only one in the worst cases), that it's not likely to be a significant WP:DEFINING characteristic of the category's members. From my experience, one does not typically read primarily via categories; I find a person's article and scroll down to see which categories he/she has been said by the Wikipedia community to belong to, not the other way around - I almost never go to a category and start looking for people from there. The benefit this may have to a reader's experience does not seem to be significant enough to be considerable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that this introduces the problem of individuals being considered to not belong merely by virtue of not having the category on their article. Is an atheist I'm reading about not conservative because this person is truly liberal, or has someone simply not taken the time to put the category on just yet? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cateogrizing individuals by political phylosophy (as opposed to political party membership) is notoriously difficult. I also have to question if all the people in Category:Atheists and its sub-cats belong there. I recently removed a lot of people from Category:Jewish atheists whose articles never said they were Jewish. I didn't look as closely to see if the article said they were an atheist, but some articles lacked any statement to that effect either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Of the 12 biography articles in this whole tree, 4 mention this award in passing and 8 don't mention it at all. Depending on the subcategory, these awards are either automatically given to elected officials, are souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, or are too common to be defining. If we decide to delete these categories, the recipients are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Asalrifai as the category creator and I added this discussion to the French Polynesia work group. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly an order awarded for merit and not just handed out to visiting dignitaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is only 1 resident of French Polynesia who was not a high political official who are in these categories apparently due to their own merit: Naea Bennett. That article makes no mention to this award, sourced or not. (There are certainly others we don't have articles for though it's not clear how many would meet the notability requirements for an article.) RevelationDirect (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because an award is given for "merit" does not mean it is defning, and there is no clear evidence that this is defining to the recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, frankly, is a ludicrous comment. Your country gives you an honour for merit and it isn't defining?! What a load of rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naea Bennett is in Wikipedia because he is a (successful) professional football player, not because he received an award. The fact that the award isn't even mentioned in the article nicely illustrates this (although that is not decisive). We don't have to make a distinction between politicians and football players in getting an award, in both cases it may be a matter of merit (or at least it is subjective to judge whether or not it is for merit), but in both cases it's not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is purely your opinion. And seems to be an argument to delete all categories for honours, since people always receive honours for what they've already done. If you believe that then we should also delete such categories as Category:Commanders of the Order of the British Empire. Note that I'm not advocating this, since it would be even more stupid than deleting this category, but I fail to see why we are singling out specific categories here. I get it with honours handed out to visiting foreign dignitaries, but not with honours that genuinely are given for merit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Philippine Independence Medal[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering 13:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
According to the articles, the Philippine Independence Medal and Philippine Liberation Medal, both of these awards were given out to any Filipino, American or other Allied troops that fought there during World War II. We don't typically categorize people by campaign medals because it ends up creating category clutter for career soldiers who participate in multiple campaigns. The current members of this category are listed here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Asalrifai as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to Task force Philippine History. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Having a campaign medal (which arrived with the pay) is NN. Many precedents on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just campaign medals. Completely non-defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining to winners. Douglas MacArthur is in both these categories, as well as 52 others. That is excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_28&oldid=1172616242"