Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:Television series by New World Television[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New World Television was folded into 20th Century Fox Television in 1997, NWT is defunct right now, all NWT shows must be moved to the category of their current distributor. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – What you're proposing here and in the nominations below is called an upmerge – merging parent and child categories. In all the cases you've nominated here, an upmerge is not called for, because the current subcategories provide useful distinctions as to the facts of the shows' production histories. Ibadibam (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: You seem to be determined to upmerge all TV production company categories to their parent companies, and have not given any good reasons to do so, other than that you really really want it like that. Also, the category name is "Television series by...," not "Television series distributed by..." Trivialist (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It must be Television series by not Television series distributed by, that what it always was for years, plus no more oppose comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't get to dictate the opinions other people are or aren't allowed to have in this discussion. Anybody gets to vote any way they want, and you don't get to tell them otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You've been repeatedly told why the cases you're nominating aren't useful — we care about the name that was on the production shingle at the time the show was in production, not about ownership changes that may have taken place five or 10 or 20 or 30 years after the show ceased production. One production company taking over another one does not force the wholesale reshuffling of "television series by production company" categories — if a television series was produced by New World Television at a time when New World Television was a standalone company, then its correct category is "Television series by New World Television" regardless of what happened to New World Television later. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should categorize artistic works by the company that created them, not the company that now controls the copyright rights. This is about producer, and that remains the same even if the producer changes ownership, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If NWT had changed its name to 20th CFT than maybe this change would make sense. However, it was absorbed by the later, so pre-absorption it is a distinct entity, and we should categorize by who actually made the productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While Fox may own them it did not create them. We should categorise by corporate authorship not current ownership. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Im so mad about the comments, no more oppose comments, and close my mergers as merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you do not get to unilaterally dictate the outcome of a CFD discussion. Each individual contributor gets to hold and express their own opinion one way or the other, and you do not get to control who's allowed to participate. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 May 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.

Television series by Warner Bros. Television[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creativity-II wants the WBTV category back to what it was so we are to have the WHT category merged into the WBTV category, and all Lorimar shows must be moved to the WBTV category.
Warner Bros. owns HBO shows for distribution, so HBO shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, must be seen in the WBTV category.
Warner Bros. owns HBO shows like Politically Incorrect for distribution all HDP shows must be moved to the WBTV category.47.54.189.22 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – These categories group shows by production company. An upmerge based on the current distribution company is not called for. As has been argued in previous discussions, production categories reflect the company that produced a show at the time it was in production. Subsequent corporate changes do not change this. Ibadibam (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For reasons stated at Category:Television series by New World Television's entry, and by Ibadibam. Trivialist (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should categorize by what company produced based on what it was called then. If we had a clear case of a company chaging its name it might be different. However Lorimar for example did not change its name, it was merged into an existing company. This should not be used to wipe out the previous Lorimar history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While Warner may own all these brands, it is not the creator of them. They should remain categorised by original corporate authorship. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, TV series by studio categorys must have shows from the companies they acquired over the years, the way it is set up, also no more opposing my mergers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia policy or rule supports your interpretation of how these categories "must" work? And what Wikipedia policy or rule allows you to dictate the opinions that contributors are allowed to have or to express in the discussion? Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 18 May 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.

Category:Telugu Wikipedians[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Somewhat redundant to Category:Wikipedians in Andhra Pradesh and Category:Wikipedians in Telangana‎. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to delete it.PhysicsScientist (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: At first I thought we must never categorise Wikipedians by their native language, but their nationality and native state. Until I found Category:Tamil Wikipedians, which is well developed. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even while the proposal has been withdrawn it seems reasonable to delete the category, since creator of the category has agreed with deletion and because creator of the category is currently the only one who populates the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In India often the most defining thing about people is their native language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 5 June 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.

Category:Lists of governors[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: withdrawn following "merge" outcome below. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split the lists to two categories matching whatever names may be agreed in the discussion below, about governors of country subdivisions and of non-sovereign entities.
Delete Category:Governors as WP:SHAREDNAME; or perhaps convert it to a category disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It may be wiser to convert Category:Governors to a category disambiguation page. Because if deleted, it is too likely that someone who has never this discussion will reinstate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we split this we are going to run into a mass of arguments over what qualifies for each. See also my rather longer comments on the next nom below. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The split between one and the other is not clear. Which list would you put governors of US territories in? Would you answer differently for the Territory of Hawaii, Utah Territory and Illinois Territory?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 5 June 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.

Category:Provincial and state governors by country[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: merge and rename to Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revised proposal inserted on relisting
Nominator's rationale: User @Scanlan: recently created a category which largely overlaps existing Governors and heads of state of non-sovereign entities. Also note the existence of Heads of government of non-sovereign entities. I asked the creator what was in their mind the difference in scope of these categories, with no answer so far. I am not sure that the title of governor or the by country mention justifies the creation of a new category, especially since the existing cat is already organised by country and that the new cat also includes leaders with a title different than provincial or state governor (Presidents of Italian Regions, Spanish Regional Presidents, Heads of government of Australian states and territories, Local executives of places in Taiwan etc.). Also, the category should probably not be restricted to current titles or current countries. Place Clichy (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this step I would like to invite @Scanlan: to explain why they created the new Category:Provincial and state governors by country and which scope it has in regard to existing categories. If this is the path of the discussion, where everyone seems to like the "new" name, we could consider a reverse merge. Place Clichy (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parent to instead of merge to, otherwise with plain merging the target category would become too messy. It would be better to align the names of the two categories somehow, the nominated category only needs to differ by having "by country" in addition. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both -- The target is badly named: it is largely about colonial governors and would be better Category:Governors of non-sovereign polities: they cannot be head of state, a term that implies sovereignty. The distinction is that the subject is about internal divisions and the target for overseas territories and the like. The title varies from country to country, but that does not require a name change: it can be adequately dealt with in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonial governors are found at Colonial governors and administrators. The feeling you have about the target is maybe because it was in great part emptied into the "new" category. Place Clichy (talk)
  • Alternative. Maybe the names can become as simple as Category:Governors (target) and Category:Governors by country (nominated category). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed rename. No opinion on whether we ought to move the current category away from its current name, but the proposed new name would restrict the scope by cutting out the US. Each US state is sovereign (not independent, but it's still considered to have sovereignty) under US constitutional law; I have no clue whether this is the case in other federations, but it would be worth checking into. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly note that it's the other way around: the "old" name is Category:Governors and heads of state of non-sovereign entities , which has sat there for years (together with Category:Heads of government of non-sovereign entities), and a new Category:Provincial and state governors by country was recently created, emptying a lot of the content of the previous two. Which, in my mind, creates a duplicate. I don't really care which is the target name, I care about the duplicate. Place Clichy (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has the opposite problem; we don't want Gideon Gono showing up in Cat:Governors just because he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Of course, we could always add a text note saying basically "this is only for provincial, state, and comparable-jurisdiction governors, not governors of institutions of other types", and at worst we'd just have to prune the Gono-type contents every so often. As long as we have that text note, I'm fine with those names. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit cold about this one. What would you place in Governors that wouldn't be in Governors by country? Also, what would be done with people holding a similar job but with a title different than Governor, such as subcategories Presidents of Italian Regions, Spanish Regional Presidents, Heads of government of Australian states and territories? They would be left out. Provincial and state governors is not that bad after all, we could maybe add or president or or equivalent to cover other types of offices, and leave out unrelated jobs also called governor such as the governor of a fortress, which is I believe not of interest here. Place Clichy (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Place Clichy, the "Governors" category would be occupied by governors from countries that don't have their own categories. "Governors by country" would be a container category, meant to hold nothing except national subcategories such as "Governors from Egypt", "Governors from the US", etc. Some countries won't have enough governor articles to warrant their own category, so the governors from those countries will get thrown into the general "Governors" category. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have just tagged Category:Governors and heads of state of non-sovereign entities since the discussion now envisages renaming that one. So far only two editors favour merging and two oppose it, so there is no consensus to merge these categories, and all that remains is to agree new names. The first category contains heads of First-level administrative country subdivisions, whereas the second is for heads of colonies, islands and other territories, some of which may be "countries" but not sovereign states. As for "Heads of government", these are distinguished from "Heads of state"/governors, so I suggest leaving them out of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current names. While re-reading the old discussion above, I don't think there is any consensus about a rename either. In addition, I would say, there is no need for renaming. So I'm withdrawing my alt rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Is Guadeloupe really a non-soverign entity? It is a department of France. It is as much part of France as is Nice or Bordeaux. On the other hand, are people prepared to place Category:Utah Territorial Governors in the non-soverign category? If not, why? Any realistic study of the situation in Territorial Utah will reveal it was under the most oppresive colonialist regime the United States ever created, with huge violations of the civil rights of the residents and denial of residents participation in the political process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to something like Category:Provincial and other governors. These are (and always should be) container categories (except perhaps the odd list-article). The scope is well summarised by Marcocapelle. "Heads of state of non-sovereign entities" is an oxymoron. In some cases, the governor will also be head of government (as in US States). In others, such as internally self-governing colonies, there may also be a head of government. Yes, Guadeloupe should be in. France solved colonial issues by converting its smaller colonies to overseas departments, which are (I think) run by a prefect in much the same way as the departments of metropolitan France. The actual titles will vary, but I think we can live with that. Where there is a separate head of government (e.g. Prime Minister) - as in Gibraltar we can have a separate Heads of government of non-sovereign entities, but that is not what we are discussing here. In each case a detailed headnote will be needed indicating its scope. There is little danger of this picking up inappropriate articles as I suspect that most of the sub-cats are themselves container categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 14 May 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.

Category:Fraternities and sororities based in Bay Village, Ohio[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Category with just one entry and unlikely to ever have more. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having one local chapter of a national fraternity located in Bay Village is not defining. There's also a Wendy's and a McDonald's there but we don't categorize those companies by Bay Village. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upmerge not needed or warranted, as that would result in Theta Phi Alpha being added to Category:Bay Village, Ohio, where it doesn't belong (it's a national organization that happens to have a chapter in Bay Village, not an organization based in Bay Village per se.) Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theta Phi Alpha is certainly notable, but this is not for an article about the Bay Village chapter, but for one on the national organisation. Such categorisation is in the nature of a performance category, the performance being having a local chapter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 14 May 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.

Category:Media from The Legend of Zelda series[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.
WP:IAR closing my own discussion, because it's been 10 days (3 over the 7-day discussion time) and there's no opposes. It's an uncontroversial request and probably should not have gone to CfD anyway. Moved. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only entry at Category:Nintendo media and its parent Category:Video game media to be named under the "Media from [name]" format instead of "[name] media". Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, Rename -- but do we really need this at all? It is a category for images from a video game. My rule is one franchise one category. The Legend of Zelda has about six categories for aspects of the franchise, plus this with 92 images from it. It all feels like FANCRUFT to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 15 May 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.

Category:Supposed Christian theologians[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: merge to Category:Authorship debates and Category:Medieval writers, with no opposition to creating a new sub-cat such as Category:Misattributed medieval authorship if additional content can be found (the current member pages are Adalbert of Spalding & Ralph Acton). – Fayenatic London 11:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles without much room for expansion, but don't upmerge to Category:Christian theologians because these two people are only notable for being the subject of a mistake in history writing, not for being a theologian. As a possible merge target I have proposed Category:Historiography of England but I'm open to alternatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The category name invites a pejorative attack on people who wrote theology but do not meet some arbitrary definition of true theologian. This is not what it is meant to cover, and the head note makes that clear, but people do not have to read head notes to add categories. It is a small category covering a phenomenon that can be better covered in a few articles, and a broader category is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename but not to that target. JPL has not adequately considered what this is about. The subject is two people who were formerly thought to be the authors of works, which are now attributed to others. That is not a perjorative attack (which would certainly be out of order). My suggestion is Category:Misattributed medieval authorship. I do not think we need a category limited to theologians, as I expect there are other misattributions in other fields, which can be included. @Johnpacklambert:. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 14 May 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.

Category:Processes[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. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, it's currently a mishmash of unrelated subcategories and articles, and even after cleaning up this category would merely remain a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Not surprisingly, Process is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is *no* common thread here. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad in scope to be maintainable as a category — anything that could encompass both Category:Mental processes and Category:Transport isn't helping our readers do anything useful or productive. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - plus ill-defined categories like this often cause category loops - e.g. Processes => Mental processes => Cognition => Cognitive science => Epistemology => Processes. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 13 May 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.

Category:Good Food Award winners[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Good Food Awards is given by a San Francisco group to recognize environmentally conscious food companies. Of the 17 companies in this categories, 6 mention the award in passing and 11 don't mention it at all. I already listified the contents here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mukilteoedits as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I note that it has just been listified, so that I presume that the list in the article is complete. A NN award, worthy only of an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining to the articles so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 14 May 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.

Category:Japan Prize laureates[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. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Japan Prize is an award for scientists who have advanced world peace. In practice, it is usually given to American scientists but it is neither the top award from Japan nor the top award for American scientists. Most of the biography articles here do mention the award, but only within a long list of other awards. The contents of this category are already listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified PDH as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Japan. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. RevelationDirect is completely mischaracterizing the award. As it states in the article, it is "awarded to people from all parts of the world whose 'original and outstanding achievements in science and technology are recognized as having advanced the frontiers of knowledge and served the cause of peace and prosperity for mankind.'" It is not "usually given to American scientists". Whether it is the "top award from Japan" is irrelevant. It should be noted that the award ceremony is attended by the Emperor and Empress of Japan, as well as "the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of House of Councilors, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, foreign ambassadors to Japan and about a thousand other distinguished guests, including eminent academics, researchers and representatives of political, business and press circles." That would lead me to believe that it is at least one of the top awards in Japan. Whether it is listified is irrelevant, too, as lists and categories can coexist, and they do not preempt each other. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the award does self-describe itself as "global", the vast majority of recipients are from the US and Japan (complete list). Presiding over ceremonial events the emperor's full time job: he also speaks every year at the award ceremonies for the Praemium Imperiale, National Sports Festival of Japan, Japan Academy Prize (academics), Order of Culture, a biology prize we don't have an article for, and more. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but if both the Emperor and Empress of Japan, as well as "the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of House of Councilors, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, foreign ambassadors to Japan and about a thousand other distinguished guests are all at the ceremony, it's noteworthy. I doubt most of the awards you mentioned have all those people attending. And perhaps we should create an article for that biology prize. And the location(s) from which a majority of the recipients come is really irrelevant to the discussion. I'm still not seeing a valid reason for deletion in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As I click on the biographies of the scientists in this category, I don't see it as defining so we'll have to agree to disagree here. I would not object to an article on the biology award though! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely non-defining for people such as Tim Berners-Lee (whose article doesn't even mention this award - going beyond WP:DNWAUC). A list is much better than a category for things like this (e.g. it can include people for whom there is no wp article and cover other complications) and as there's a list there's no need for a category. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is the usual outcome for WP:OC#AWARD. In some cases, we need to listify first, but here there is a good list in the main article. If this were a prize awarded for the best scientist working in Japan, I might vote differently, but it is not: it is Japan's award to the world's scientists. The prohibition on awards categories has some exceptions, particularly the Nobel Prizes, but this lacks its prestige. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award is non-defining to the people who receive it. No amount of top dignitaries at the ceremony over the fact it does not define the people who recieve it, which is our test of whether an award needs a category. This category just adds to category clutter, which considering we have articles with over 50 awards categories attached to them, is way out of hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 14 May 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.

Category:Cal State Los Angeles Diablos football[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The sports teams at California State University, Los Angeles were known as the Diablos prior to 1981. Since the football program was disbanded following the 1977 season, relevant categories and articles should reflect the school's fight name at that time. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support name change. I was the creator of those categories but didn't realize the nickname had been Diablos at the time of the football team disbanding. It is standard naming convention for college sports' WikiProjects to keep the names of the programs if those programs disbanded with the given name at that time. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- For alumni categories we categorise according to the present name. I believe the same principle should be applied to sports teams. The place to record that the present category includes players (etc) who operated under the team's previous name is in the headnote to the category, not my multiplying categories. My rule on this is "one franchise: one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am torn on this one. I really am starting to think we should just drop the team nicknames from such category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use the name they actually had.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:33, 15 May 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.

Category:Nurse-politicians[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. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We generally avoid categorizing by a combination of two occupations. Exceptions are made for some combinations of occupation and politician, as with Category:Actor-politicians, Category:Astronaut-politicians, and Category:Sportsperson-politicians. The reason those are arguably OK is because it has been identified in reliable sources that these combinations are a "thing"—it is common in various countries for people who gain notability as an actor, or astronaut, or politician to leverage that notability into a political career. This is not the case with nurses—nurses are typically not the type of people who become widely known because of their occupation as a nurse. In other words, persons who have been both nurses and politicians are generally not defined by the combination of "nurse-politician". They may be defined by having been a nurse, and they are defined by being a politician, but not generally by the combination of the two. (The contents could be upmerged to the appropriate parent category for nurses and/or politicians, as needed. I'm happy to do this work if the categories are to be deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Doesn't seem to be a meaningful intersection. I'm not so sold on the other categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see precedent for physician-politicians at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_4#Category:Physician-politicians. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's rationale, which seems to also fit the physician-politician outcome above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I still remain unconvinced that this is a useful categorization scheme even in the cases of actors, astronauts or sportspeople, but nominator is correct that it's definitely not useful or defining for nurses. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I disagree with the deletion of the physicians category. A politician will come to politics with experience from a previous profession. That experience will feed in to what they achieve in politics. Accordingly Politicians by previous profession seems to me a legitimate category tree. I would not want us to put those who went into nursing after giving up politics into such a tree, but my guess is that it will usually be the other way around. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I challenge anyone to show that Sue Rocca having been a nurse was controlling to her actions in the state legislature. This is even more questionable with some other people. Being a nurse is not the actual spring-board to notability that gives the people name recognition to get elected. This is not like actor-politicians, and television personality politicians several of them capitalized on their popularity and name recognition for one to move to the other. The same cane be said for sportpeople-politicians in some cases. I do not think it can be said for nurse politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the people in this article, such as Margaret B. Laird, it is not clear they ever worked as a nurse, just were trained as such. Renee Ellmers had a long career in nursing, and was over multiple nurses, but while this has some relevance to her political career, not enough to create an intersection worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories like this may be ok where the person is notable/famous for their former job, but for most occupations it's overcategorization (e.g. it leads to articles such as Toshiko Abe where the list of categories is almost as long as the article text). DexDor (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PeterKingiron. Doctors are probably the exception, but nurse-politician is a notable intersection.--TM 18:18, 2 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_11&oldid=1091637831"