Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:Cooklite Magazine[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: the category has already been speedy deleted per WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) by User:Materialscientist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be just a promotional category. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Created by a promotional account that is not heeding a coi-username warning. Obviously does not understand how categories work. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, spam. (CSD G11). Breaking sticks (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (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.

Islam in India categories[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. Recreation is permitted when coverage of this topic is more comprehensive. MER-C 14:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SOFTDELETE for now, as these categories each only contain a sub-category for mosques. That sub-category is already within the parent categories: for Category:Islam in India by state or union territory, it is within Category:Mosques in India by state or union territory; and for e.g. Category:Religion in Goa, it is within Category:Places of worship in Goa. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless other articles can be found to fit into these categories they are redundant and unneeded. It seems on first view that all these categories here and the articles in them where started by ஜுபைர் அக்மல் who was seeming to try to create an article for a mosque for every state and territory in India. There is nothing inherently wrong with this of course but many of these articles have copyright and non-encyclopedic tone problems, not to mention a complete lack of secondary and/or third-party sources. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series (Category:Islam in India by state or union territory) with significant potential for expansion.
Per Islam in India, "Islam is the second-largest religion in India, with roughly 15% of the country's population or 201 million people identifying as adherents of Islam". There is clearly huge potential for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems perverse to suggest that this will generate too little coverage for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is remarkable that Jharkand has so little coverage. There is even only one mosque in the subcategory. But it does not change my opinion. A city of 100,000 people is a small city by Indian standards, states with 100,000 Muslims quite the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom -- Unless there are at least 5 articles, we should allow a category. UP, Kashmir, etc with major Muslim populations can be allowed subcats, but not otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom per Peterkingiron and in concert with WP:SMALLCAT; it's the number of articles not the number of adherents that matter; no prejudice to re-divide when the article numbers so merit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanking those who have supported the nomination. I have clarified that this should be a WP:SOFTDELETE unless and until more content is available to make the categories worthwhile. – Fayenatic London 15:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Islam is so small in these parts of India we do not even have articles on it there. In Goa and Manipur only about 8% of the population is Muslim, in Goa that means about 110,000 people. We would need multiple articles on the subject to justify a seperate category, which we are no where close to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2019 (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:Cameo Records singles[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: no consensus. The only editor who made a specific !vote opposes any change, and the two other editor who participated did not cast a !vote. The discussion was mostly unconstructive, which may be why after three weeks there were only four participants.
Towards the end, there seemed to be inconclusive signs of some agreement, so maybe further discussion at Category talk:Cameo Records singles might identify a solution to bring back to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cameo Records was a record company in the 1920s that closed in 1928. The songs listed with this category are incorrectly linking to this page rather than to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Cameo-Parkway Records released songs as Cameo, Parkway, and Cameo-Parkway in the 50s and 60s so the WP articles should be linked Cameo-Parkway Records's category instead as Cameo Records and Cameo-Parkway Records are two completely separate companies.

I am thinking the songs listed under this category need to be moved to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records and this category as there are no WP articles with songs released under Cameo Records in the 1920s. LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are miscategorized, then recategorize them to the correct category. If that then empties the category it would be eligible for WP:C1 speedy deletion. ~ GB fan 11:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried to recatergorize them, but the creator of the category reverted the edits. I also already tried to do speedy deletion and it was denied and I was referred here.LongLiveMusic (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we already have Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles. Oculi (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.:This is a vexatious nomination. See the discussion on the talk page. Firstly, the introduction to the Cameo-Parkway article presently reads, 'Cameo-Parkway Records was the parent company of Cameo Records and Parkway Records, which were major American Philadelphia-based record labels from 1956 (for Cameo) and 1958 (for Parkway) to 1967.' So that establishes Cameo as a record label. So the main article confirms that there was a 'record label' called Cameo between 1956 and 1967, but because one editor won't accept this we have to go through this farrago of a nomination. The category these belong in is 'Singles by Record LABEL' NOT by company. There is a difference. Finally a 'record label' is a trade mark, device or marketing system used by a record company which was printed on the record, an example is here (others are on the talk page, or you can find your own easy enough). Image of Charlies Grace's Butterfly single showing the Cameo logo of the time.
This give us two options, we rename the holding category as Singles albums etc by Record Company and merge all the subsidiary labels back into the record company, or we accept the category is correct as 'Singles by Record Label' FWIW Whether Cameo has a separate article is irrelevant to this discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Cameo Records was an American record label that flourished in the 1920s." I most misspoke by calling it a record company in my oringal post. It was also a record label. Also, I get you created this category, but can you please stop making person remarks about me and stick to the discussion on the category?LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly fine with as a subcat. I just wanted to make sure there is no confusion since Cameo Records itself is a different label. The reason I posted this is I just worry there will end up being an article created that is a single release under Cameo Records, but they are now being categorized with singles from Cameo-Parkway Records.LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments in further of suggestions above. This is far from the only example along these lines and needs sorting out, which I could/should have done many times over the past years, but then so should others, and I did suggest to LongLiveMusic it was a preferred way to take this discussion. I would have had no problem if somebody had added to the category text, something along the lines of 'Cameo was a label used by the Cameo-Parkway Record company to issue disks between 1956 and 1967 to solve this problem, but to incorrectly recategorize to fit an editor's whim. That's a no-no in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an incorrect blue link on Bye Bye Birdie (to the 20s Cameo). Oculi (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but I've fixed it now. Incorrect blue links are a major problem at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has to so with the possibility that confusion will arise and possibly miscategorisation unless there is some dab added to Category:Cameo Records singles, because the article Cameo Records is about a different entity. Eg it could be Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, with a redirect Cameo Records (1956-67) to Cameo-Parkway Records. That is, Category:Cameo Records singles is ambiguous and should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These singles were released on the Cameo label, not the Cameo-Parkway label, what renaming are you suggesting? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting Category:Cameo Records (1956-67) singles, or similar. Oculi (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the redirect Cameo Records (1956) and now suggest that Cameo Records be moved to Cameo Records (1922) (founded in 1922 acc to infobox) and Cameo Records be recreated as a dab page. I suggest Category:Cameo Records (1956) singles as a suitable name for the category under discussion. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, I think that would be a good solution to dab the two to prevent confusion. That way if someone is searching for Cameo of the 50s they are not going to be incorrectly sent to the Cameo of the 20s which is what currently happens. This way viewers know the Cameo of the 50s is part of the Cameo-Parkway parent company.LongLiveMusic (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2019 March 7 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 20 March 2019 (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:CEOs of General Electric[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 8#Category:CEOs of General Electric

Category:Miniatures games[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: no consensus to rename, after substantially extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 18:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with main article title Miniature wargaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: this is follow-up on this discussion, @Le Deluge: pinging nominator of that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are plenty of tabletop miniatures games which are not "wargames", although, of course, that genre is quite prevalent. Category:Miniature wargames exists as a subcategory, and I'd suggest just moving whatever is appropriate under that heading. But there are several genres of miniatures games which don't belong in that specific genre category. For example, Collectible miniatures game as a genre is not limited to only "wargames", so the current category is the best place to put it. -- Netoholic @ 07:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Largely" is not "fully", and so there is no need be artificially limited. That category did exist, but was speedied. It can certainly be recreated and any topics/subcategories specifically limited to "miniatures wargames" can go under it. But that doesn't mean supplanting the more general and broad genre of miniatures games. -- Netoholic @ 21:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blood Bowl and other sports-based games (Subbuteo) are not "wargames". Strategy board games like Mansions of Madness played with miniatures aren't "wargames". Basically, any game played with figures that is not about competing armies (but rather small party or individual skirmishes) would not be served by this move. -- Netoholic @ 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is one of those rare situations in which a name is appropriate for the main article but not ideal for the main category. "Miniature wargames" could be a miniature wargame (the intended idea), or it could be a really simple war-related game (it requires miniature time or effort), or it could simply be a travel edition of a war-related game (e.g. Risk with magnetic pieces and an enclosed dice-shaker). I acknowledge that the current title isn't good at all, but we should find a better title to which to move it. Building on Netoholic: maybe "tabletop wargames? Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a clearout Sort of what Nyttend said. Wargames form a very recognisable subset of miniature gaming, but miniature gaming itself is a somewhat vague category, which as we've seen doesn't have its own article. Recognisable and distinct makes for a good category, somewhat vague is bad. Looking around we have an Indoor games and sports article but no corresponding category, which perhaps we should as a master category for this area. We have Tabletop game and the corresponding Category:Tabletop games which is the parent of this one - it's not that full and could do with a bit of a cleanup, there's a number of articles in there which would be better in the board game category for instance. Then clean out non-wargames from this category - to my non-expert mind, Subbuteo is stretching the conventional definition of miniature gaming to the limit, whilst undoubtedly using "miniature" players; but Subbuteo would sit very naturally in Category:Tabletop games.Le Deluge (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that leads to a split to Category:Miniature wargames and Category:Tabletop games. As nominator I am fine with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad plan. Tabletop games are an absolutely massive classification (just look at what's listed under "Classification according to equipment used" and think of every possible game variety that you could play sitting at a table. Your suggestion is like wanting to clear out Category:Primates and lump it together under Category:Mammals. Certainly you should be able to accept that all miniature wargames are miniatures games, but not all miniatures games are wargames. Wargames are defined by use of competing armies, so anything of smaller scale like Malifaux which involves teams of 4-6 figures doesn't qualify. Song of Blades and Heroes is a heroes-vs-monsters miniatures game, another style that is not a "wargame". Your plan would result in many games either being wrongly identified as "war"games, or being put into a category so broad as to be devoid of any meaning. -- Netoholic @ 02:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - there's no need to classify things as wargames that aren't, the whole point is that "wargame" is a pretty easily definable category. But Category:Tabletop games is not "an absolutely massive" category - it only has 72 articles in it which is a nice number (most articles are in specific daughter categories), and one that could probably be reduced by bumping some of them down into more specific categories. So it's fine to have a few games in there that don't fit any of the existing categories. You're making the common mistake of WP:CATEGORIZATION, feeling the need to categories "oddities" like Subbuteo in a very specific category when it's absolutely fine to leave it in a more general category. The nearest comparison with mammals would be leaving the platypuses in the top Category:Mammals as there's not enough of them to justify creating a specific category for them in normal circumstances (but biologists over-categorise by Wikipedia standards). In the case of games the boundaries are far more arbitrary than in biology, so it's aboslutely fine to have 70+ articles in the top category.Le Deluge (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2019 (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:Fictional California Institute of Technology people[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, along with Category:Fictional California Institute of Technology students.
There is consensus that this category is a WP:NARROWCAT, but some uncertainty on how the articles should be recategorised, so I will listify the contents on the talk page, and leave it to the participants (@Originalmess, Apokrif, and Marcocapelle:) to recategorise the pages in other existing categories.
Note that Category:Fictional California Institute of Technology students was not created by a few hours ago by Apokrif, who created Category:Fictional California Institute of Technology students. I AGF that was not an attempt to evade CFD consensus, but that creation clearly undermines the consensus-building here, so I am treating it as if it had been nominated here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lists:
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: very, very specific category that holds two articles and one redirect. Just checked and it was only created 10 days ago, but WP:SMALLCAT and the following WP:NARROWCAT with borderline elements of location/trivial intersection that makes it seem like this category won't hold very much in the future. Walter White could be included, but we do have List of fictional scientists and engineers already. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 04:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"holds two articles and one redirect" Currently four articles and two redirects.
"Walter White could be included" Done.
"we do have List of fictional scientists and engineers already" Caltech people, and engineers and scientists, are two different sets.
Apokrif (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2019 (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.

Order pro merito Melitensi[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. MER-C 09:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING award which causes unnececessary category clutter on articles such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Willy Brandt, George W. Bush, Laurent Fabius, Grace Kelly.
The Order pro merito Melitensi is a broad scope award, issued to those who the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (a Catholic lay religious order) believes have done good.
It appears to be issued only those who already already highly notable for their achievements. and I have not identified any case in which it appears to meet the tests in WP:DEFINING.
There are currently 78 articles in Category:Recipients of the Order pro merito Melitensi. Of those
  • 43 articles do not mention "merito Melitensi" anywhere other than in the category lists. If the category is kept, those articles should be removed from the category per WP:CATVER
  • 34 articles mentions "merito Melitensi" only in an appendix which lists honours, decorations and awards
  • Only 1 article mentions "merito Melitensi" in body text: Liam Hackett (firefighter). That short article has no sections, and "merito Melitensi" is mentioned only in the 9th of 10 paragraphs.
So the clear consensus of the editors who write and maintain these articles is that being a recipients of the Order pro merito Melitensi is non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous discussions:
  1. WP:CFD 2014 November 29 proposed deleting this as one of 5 award categories. I am not clear why they were grouped, but the result was "no consensus".
  2. WP:CFD 2014 December 20 proposed deleting this along with 204 other award categories. Unsurprisingly for such a large group, it clsed as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you saying that any categorisation for recipients of orders of merit of sovereign conferees (state order/dynastic order) are "unnececessary category clutter"? If not, then why should it be in this particular case? This seems to be one of the older such orders of merit. If this one would be deleted, then what else hold raison d'être in the fairly vast Category:Orders, decorations, and medals? Not sure, but may this request be less informed on a general societal level than you would expect, or is it simply that of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT one? PPEMES (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PPEMES, kindly learn some basic semblance of basic civility, and do not accuse me of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination when I have clearly set out an evidenced, guideline-based reason for deletion. You may reasonably disagree with my analysis, but how dare you try that sleazy scumbag tick of denying that I have made one. That is a very dishonest way to behave, and I hope you will lose no time in withdrawing that comment.
The Order pro Merito Melitensi was established in 1920, so it's not particularly old. And as I have shown above, the de facto consensus of editors who edit these articles is that it not a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
And yes, there are many other categories for decorations and medals. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and per WP:OCAWARD the presumption is that award recipients should be the subject of lists rather than of categories, unless there is evidence that the award is WP:DEFINING. I have shown evidence that this award is not defining; and I am reckon that if scrutinised, amny other categories will fail WP:OCAWARD. But we scrutinise them one at a time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly old in relative to what? According to the list in order of merit, establishment in 1920 seems to make it one of the older explicite orders of merit. I regret if feelings hurt the fact that guidelines may be interpretated in other ways: I'm not sure an official national order of merit - being part of public and diplomatic state protocol - could be comparable with Category:People who have recieved honorary degrees from Harvard_University, as exemplified as redundant categorisation by Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining. As seen in Category:Recipients of orders of merit that I just added, the implication would be that you would erase container categories for recipients of the highest national dinstinction for more than one country (such as Germany, Italy, Austria). Those that fail WP:CATVER could use more sources per WP:NOTFINISHED or else be dropped from categorisation. On a side note, should you fancy, indeed a complementary List of recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi (and other relevant orders of merit) wouldn't hurt. What if we zoom out from this nomination, taking a more critical stance on a broader scale: consider categories such as Category:Recipients of Nazi German military awards and decorations (here we are talking medals, not orders). I assume we can agree on not liking these, but would we want to censor these categories for that sake? What about Category:Recipients of the Order of Civil Merit (Syria), Category:Recipients of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", etc.? PPEMES (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the sleaziness. @PPEMES, you just wrote I regret if feelings hurt the fact that guidelines may be interpretated in other ways.
It was abundantly clear above that my complaint did not relate to guidelines being interpreted differently. I complained about your false assertion that my objection was WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Clean up your act by striking these blatant misrepresentations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I attempt to explain my view? Would such a niche area really be fair to identify as part of common knowledge? Consider for instance the comment the other week of "Phalerwhat?". We can't expect people to be expert in all subjects. I myself am by no means any expert. To add to that, there are indeed differing opinions outside of Wikipedia on the significance of this stuff. A certain aversion would be clear to anyone who investigates the debate surrounding this subject. You do great works here, being very active, and I am sorry that I differ from your interpretation of defining criterias and overcategorisation in this case (by means of subject of bilateral state and diplomatic protocol being on another level than honorary degrees from universities or honorary citizenship of cities, etc.). That said, if you insist on that any of this would be uncivil or sleazy, I am backing off from this nomination and let you have it your way. In that case, please don't let me be an obstancle. PPEMES (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES, I had really hoped that you would strike your personal attacks on other editors, and participate in the discussion by adding something of substance related to the application of categorisation policy. Sadly, you have done neither, and instead you continue on the sleazy theme of suggesting that the issue here is personal aversions.
The formation of consensus is not helped by statements such as "I differ". It needs the application of policies and guidelines, and evidence to back that up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was being unclear. Deletion has been proposed in reference to policies correctly identifying honorary degrees from universities or honorary citizenship of cities, etc. as redundant. I think such items may be a redundant categorisation, but I don't interpretate this category as meeting that redundance criteria by means of a subject of bilateral state and diplomatic protocol: a state order, that is. Then big chunks of categories would have to go by the same criteria. I'm not sure people want to erase categories about recipients of the highest public awards (state order) of several countries, by consequence. That for me illustrate the issue. Also, I have tried to explain why it wasn't meant as any offense to inquire about less than expert knowledge covering this stuff in general, since it's a rather niche subject. That is, if someone equals a major national order of merit with honorary degrees from universities. I'd be delighted if non native-English speaking foreign users could be relieved from being called sleazy scumbugs for objecting in discussions to the best of their limited language ability, if you don't mind. PPEMES (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES, I was not aware that you are not a native English speaker. But whatever language you speak, it doesn't alter the fact that you chose to personalise your comments rather than addressing the policy and guideline issues. You made that choice, and that's why I described your comments in that way.
Substantively, it's a very long stretch to describe an award issued by some private group commemorating a long-defunct state as a "major national order of merit". The applicability of the words "major" and "national" is at best dubious; personally, I'd use stronger words to dismiss such claims about a body which for all practical purposes is a lay religious order.
But the underlying problem is that you seem to assume that being a state order is a relevant test of whether an awards category should exist. That is not the case: see WP:OCAWARD. Many many categories for national awards have been deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question about why we have such a large Category:Orders, decorations, and medals tree, a handful of mostly retired editors created hundreds (thousands?) of orders/medal categories in rapid succession like User talk:Folks at 137 and User talk:Asalrifai. When we've tried to group the nominations in large blocks, the response we get is that there are differences in the awards that should be evaluated individually so we're left with the long-term effort of nominating them one at a time. Even if we still disagree on this nomination, I hope that background helps! RevelationDirect (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, I do recognise that this is a quite niche subject. It risk being a typical example of a subject where people with limited background knowledge may walk in and fail to recognise its significance altogether. I'd caution against that. PPEMES (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: If you don't want to find yourself in WP:NPA trouble, I suggest that you promptly strike that comment along with your ad hominems above.
Instead of snidely trying to deride other editors by suggesting that support of deletion of this category is based on limited background knowledge, please use your claimed superior knowledge to provide actual evidence that this category meets the test of WP:DEFINING for the biographies in that category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clicking through these articles, there is passing or no reference and it adds clutter and doesnt' seem defining. Pretty standard WP:OCAWARD that is much better suited for a list in the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these unnecessary categories capturing trivia do need to be picked off one by one. Oculi (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support per incisive remarks of the nominator. Too many articles are drowning in category clutter. Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic for this CfD (Pre-approval for awards categories)
  • The discussion above prompts me to reiterate something I posted a couple of days ago in a similar CFD:
    • Comment/Proposal: Rather than cleaning up these messes after the fact, I think we should give serious consideration to requiring pre-approval for all new awards categories. If I'm not mistaken, that's how it works with stub categories, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anomalous+0, a pre-approval process doesn't exist for any other type of content category. The stub-cat pre-approval process at WP:WPSS/P is not quite defunct, but very much a sideshow. I gave up using it many years ago when assessment of requests fell to such a ridiculously slow place that I had long since forgotten the issues involved by the time any queries were posted; and it's years since anyone objected to my ignoring it. AFAICS, most stub types are not created outside the WP:WPSS/P process.
So I think we have little choice other than to continue to assess them post-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for your reply. I've never understood why stub cats were supposed to get pre-approval, but never cared enough to pursue it - just not worth my time.
However I am quite serious about requiring pre-approval for these award cats. It's not just because the vast majority are simply too trivial to warrant categories. It's compounded by the interrelated fact that we can state with a high degree of certainty that virtually every award that actually *does* warrant a category has already been created.
Seriously, let that sink in: the "universe" of potentially meritorious award categories has been almost entirely exhausted. The likelihood of truly meritorious award cats having been somehow overlooked by this point in time is surely very small indeed. In short, the situation is unlike any major genre of categories that I can think of, and really should be handled differently than garden variety categories. Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anomalous+0, this discussion is about the deletion of one category. It cannot record a consensus in favour of the idea of pre-approval, let alone implement it. So if you want to pursue your pre-approval idea, please start a discussion at WT:CAT rather than drafting this discussion off-topic.
As to your claim that we can state with a high degree of certainty that virtually every award that actually *does* warrant a category has already been created ... please remember that this is your unevidenced personal opinion, and that the proposition is unprovable. If you do open that WT:CAT discussion, there will be better ways of making your case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll give it some thought. Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is bit unclear. Do the above think that all categories in Category:Recipients of orders of merit (state issued or dynastic) are unmotivated? If not, then why is this one specifically? PPEMES (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PPEMES, the categories are scrutinised as nominated at CFD, against the existing guidelines which allows such cats only in exceptional cases. Why this one? Simple: it's one I encountered, which seemed to breach the guidelines. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Speaking, personally, I think that very few orders of merit pass the core WP:DEFININGness test as way of categorising individual biographies. Even those orders which have demonstrably wide coverage of the order are rarely defining for the individual recipient. I think that many many more would be deleted if the deletion discussions were not repeatedly disrupted by a small number of editors who appear to have some personal fascination with the award in question and who disregard both the specific guideline WP:OCAWARD and the basic categorisation principle of WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Despite its name, the Sovereign Order of Malta has had no territory since the French conquered Malta on their way to invade Egypt in 1798. This is thus not a national award. I consider that it fails OCAWARD. Listify if necessary. I suspect that approval for new awards categories would be unworkable, because (unlike stub-types) they are ordinary categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This assertions of non-sovereignty above seem not to be supported by the Sovereign Order of Malta article. Feel free though if anyone can prove sources that would alter its status of sovereign entity. If not, then feel free to alter what is said in fons honorum. If you cannot either, I'm not sure what sense to make out of the comments above based on new premises of non-sovereignty. Again, I would advice to apply caution. We have so far dealt consequentially with these recipients categories as collected in Category:Recipients of orders of merit: That is, orders of chivalry and orders of merit conferred by a legitimate fon honorum (a head of a state or of formerly ruling dynasty per general, international protocoal) are deemed to be relevant in categories along with recipients. The premise that one of these entities doesn't satisfy the critera for a state should be cleared before we proceed with deleting categories for this entity. That premise repeatedly asserted in the comments above is new, and ought better be evaluated before proceeding to deletion. Actually the proper location for such a discussion would be Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Please note that the article has been categorised for years in Category:Monarchies of Europe. PPEMES (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PPEMES, you are arguing with yourself on an off-topic factor. The obscure technical question of whether or not this lay-religious-order-with-no-territory is considered a "sovereign" entity for some diplomatic purposes due to various machinations which led to its inclusion in a treaty 200 years ago is no part of any of the en.wp guidelines which affect this discussion. It is a factor which some editors have chosen to opine on, but which has np bearing on the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion about this particular entity should stand for yourself until you manage to change the contents of the article of the subject. Since you don't seem interested in applying internationally established criterias when interpretating the policies referred (c.f. International Commission on Orders of Chivalry), I am trying to understand where you draw the line and if so with what other criterias of your personal preference: Is the Order of the Garter not important enough to keep recipients categories? Not even perhaps it's own Category:Order of the Garter? Ought we drop Template:Members of the Order of the Garter? I ask, since I thought that the same criterias applied over the board, including in the entity in question here above. If that isn't the case, I would propose to discuss that as a general matter before going about with individual cases. PPEMES (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh'. @PPEMES, the same criteria do apply across the board. However, those criteria are based on whether a category would be useful to our readers, rather than on the proceedings of some obscure official body. If and when the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry writes its own encyclopedia, it can set its own criteria to suits its own purposes ... but Wikipedia is not a specialist encyclopedia of chivalric legal fictions, so Wikipedia sets its criteria to best serve a non-specialist audience.
I note you still offer absolutely zero evidence that this award is WP:DEFINING to its recipients. The verbose wikilawyering is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if we drop master suppression techniques against non-native English-speaking foreigners? Would that be too much courtesy to ask for? As for the topic discussed, you may be perfectly right and I may well be completely ignorant in interpretating thourougly reasonable policy implications. Thus, I am trying to understand how the policies you are referring to apply here. I am certainly a non-specialist in this subject. Do I understand it correctly that Category:Order of the Garter and its recipients categories fail Wikipedia:Defining and WP:OCAWARD as much as that of SMOM does? If not, then what in those policies make the Garter relevent but said categories of SMOM not? PPEMES (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES, I might have gone another round of explanation, but since you have already decided that I am acting in bad faith, and you have accused me of using master suppression techniques, further discussion is pointless. You show no signs of having read either WP:DEFINING or my analysis at the top of this discussion, and I have wasted enough time on you already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nowhere in the policies referred to that it strictly enforces deletion of categories of orders of merit of states. So what quote in those policies determine that need in your interpretation? PPEMES (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES, this is very simple. The guidelines do not even mention "orders of merit of states". That is not part of the test.
The test is WP:DEFINING, which you are either unwilling or unable to understand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. I don't understand how that policy apply here. Would you mind explaining? PPEMES (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PPEMES, as you have been reminded several times before, it is explained very clearly at the top of this nomination. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and if your command of English is insufficient to understand that, then I can't help you. If your intent is to troll and disrupt, then you are doing very well; otherwise, it's time to stop being disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Is it just as clear for equivalent categories pertaining to for example Order of the Garter? If not, then why not? Trying to understand your interpretation of the policy. Thanks for helping! PPEMES (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked into that yet. Will do once it is nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind having a glimpse now - since deleting the above category in this nomination might implicate the deletion of hundreds of categories that many contributors have spent numerous manhours in building up for the benefit of information access throughout Wikipedia? PPEMES (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They should have known better, WP:OCAWARD is a specific guideline to discourage creation of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2019 (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:International Association of Athletics Federations Hall of Fame inductees[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
"Athletes must have won at least two gold medals at the Summer Olympics or World Championships in Athletics" and be retired for 10 years in order to be inducted according to the main article, IAAF Hall of Fame. In other words, in Wikipedia these articles will already be categorized in multiple more specific articles for their medals. Most of the articles mention the award in passing an an honours section so it doesn't seem defining. All of the winners are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support per nom. A list is more than enough. Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a NN award. Is it in fact awarded by IAAF or by WP? If the latter delete and salt. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's awarded by the IAAF. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2019 (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/2019_March_20&oldid=898756961"