The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Wikipedia:Snuggle is tagged as {{historical}}, and the last commit to its GitHub repository (and thus the last actual time it was "developed") was in 2016). * Pppery *it has begun... 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedily? --Just N. (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2021 (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 Presidential Unit Citation (United States)[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.
Comment - this is for military units, not individuals. I would expect the usual 'delete' argument (for people) needs a little modification. Oculi (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Likely WP:POINTY nomination by submitter who does not agree with deletion, based on the admission in the Silver Star discussion below. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the category since it appears to be an award with enough recipients to not be too niche but not enough to be generic/non-defining, and that still holds. No WP:OCAWARD here. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 02:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category seems to be used primarily for non-US military units (only a couple of US units are included). I would agree with the Keep recommendation if it were clearer that its use is limited to units. I would also point out that if it were commonly used for US units, the category would probably include over 1000 units. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2021 (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 Aerial Achievement 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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining American award category. Checked several bios, doesnt show it to be defining. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to Aerial Achievement Medal, 5000 such were awarded in 18 months in 2010-11, which suggests this is not a major accolade. Oculi (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nondefining award, per Oculi (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Listify This is a consolation prize for those who were ineligible for the more prestigious Air Medal according to the main article, Aerial Achievement Medal, and the articles treat it that way. The notable recipients should be listified though and I can help. (This is likely a WP:POINTY nom, but the category clearly fails WP:OCAWARD.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook example of overcategorization. Carguychris (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:rename (and remove page header) to avoid ambiguity. Hindu scholars might include (which the page header suggests) Hindu chemists and Hindu French linguists, but this is neither according to the current category content nor in line with WP:OCEGRS as a trivial intersection with religion. The proposed name Category:Scholars of Hinduism avoids these misinterpretations and is in line with Category:Scholars of Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete: Per Marcocapelle. Plus, I don't think "enclave" is the normal term for a minority religious community. Furius (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that many articles are categorized here erroniously, but for those that aren't would not a merge to Category:Hindu communities be appropriate? Inter&anthro (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles are you referring to? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, container category with only three subcategories, it would be more intuitive to find these subcategories directly in the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Although there is no explicit statement of obsolescence on User:Henna/VF (unlike my other "defunct project/tool" CfD nominations), the tool does not seem to have been maintained since 2010, all of its download links are broken, and the creator's last 50 edits date back to 2006, so I'm assuming the tool is no longer in active use. * Pppery *it has begun... 00:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:STiki, STiki has not been functional since March 2020. The creator has been unable to access the servers that STiki depends on in order to run* Pppery *it has begun... 00:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining American award category. Checked several bios, and the people who got it aren't famous for having the award but for other reasons. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another ridiculous honours category nomination. Third-level bravery awards are most certainly defining. These ludicrous attacks on honours categories have to stop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complete misunderstanding of our categorisation guidelines. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Has nothing to do with being famous solely for it. Hawkeye7(discuss) 11:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I have a suspicion that this may be a "revenge attack" for the recent proposing of the deletion (and, indeed, actual deletion) of numerous non-Anglophone honours categories in which exactly the same reasoning has been used. It's always illegitimate, but sadly CfD is often so poorly attended that they've been forced through with little opposition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Third highest award for bravery is sufficient for a keep. It should be noted that it also has its own Wikipedia article. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poorly crafted nom, lacking in understanding of the very reasons being cited, should be struck. Also per Hawkeye7 & Kierzek. (note: Silver Star) - wolf 15:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Necrothesp says, PlanespotterA320 is trying to make a point rather than actually advancing a position that they hold, which is disruptive... But I agree that this award appears in articles in exactly the same circumstances as most of the (much higher-ranking) awards whose categories have been nominated for deletion over the last week. Those categories look very much like they are going to be deleted; this one is a snow keep. It's hard not to see a double standard in operation. Furius (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simply think our category standards should be consistent. The category for the HIGHEST order/Second highest decoration of the USSR is being nominated for deletion and it's "up in the air" as to if that's going to happen - so why is it undebatable that the THIRD highest American medal have a category for recipients? As long as it is acceptable to debate merits of one category, it should be fine to debate the other.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then go to a talk page and start a discussion. You don't post tit-for-tat revenge noms just to prove a point. - wolf 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are right. To demonstrate that the Order of Suvarov categories ought to be deleted, (see yesterday's CfD page), User:Buidhe "randomly selected six biographies. As it turns out none of these bios more than mention the award, often listing it with more prestigious ones." That's exactly what happens with this award, e.g. Kermit Beahan (not mentioned in text at all), Neville Brand, Jacques Andrieux, Kenneth E. BeLieu. Furius (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we have a recipient category for the Nobel Peace Prize, doesn't mean we automatically give recipient categories to the other 81 articles in Category:Peace awards for the sake of consistency. What matters is whether reliable sources treat the awards as defining for the biography articles, not how notable the award itself is. So a third level award might be defining under WP:OCAWARD for one country and not for another. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that it's been suggested that the problem is with there not being reliable sources on these awards / on these awards' defining-ness. I think it's a red herring; there isn't any difference in the way reliable sources treat this award and (e.g.) the Order of Suvarov... except perhaps that there's more on the American awards in English. Furius (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is any Norwegian actually spoken at a Nobel Peace Prize ceremony? We keep Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates because it is one of the pre-eminent awards in the world. We got rid of Category:World Peace Prize laureates because it is a very minor award. They are not at all on the same level and to act like one is the English language equivalent of the other is just not right...
To be clear though, I do think that you're operating in good faith; I just don't think that the result, which in practice sees English and American award cats stay and the cats for other nations go (mostly because people who work on military articles swoop in when the American ones are nominated, but don't notice the Romanian/Luxembourgish/Russian ones) is a good result. (You're also right about your move for a procedural close) Furius (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Of course those peace awards are different and we came to that conclusion through stand-alone nominations, not requiring that the Nobel be nominated before any others peace awards could be considered. There are definitely editor constituencies for some topics (Soviet history, American military) and less for others but the regular CFD contributors are generally even handed when looking at articles. The troubling disparity is not in the category space that can be handled through CFD but with how many biography articles are missing for people from non-English speaking countries. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close This is a WP:POINTY nomination, as the submitter acknowledges above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- OCAWARD. This has been awarded far to frequently for the category to be useful as a navigation aid. This is different from the case of the award to units at the top of the page, which has only been awarded a few times. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, WP:OCAWARD says: A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients. I checked a large number of articles and for some people the reason for the award was mentioned in the text so one might argue that it is defining for them. But for the majority it was a mere mention of the award in the infobox, or as part of a summing up of multiple awards, or not even mentioned at all in the article, i.e. most certainly not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand why it is necessary for the article to explain the reason for the award in order for it to be defining. We categorise biographies by place and date of birth - we don't require the article to go into detail about what either of those facts meant to the individual. Furius (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: Awards like the Victoria Cross, Nobel Prize, BAFTA, etc. generally do say why it was won because it's a key piece to their biography. The fundamental difference with other verifiable biographical details is that hometowns, schools attended, dates of birth/death generally have 1 entry per biography so there's not a risk of category clutter which impedes navigation for readers which is the whole purpose of categories. (There are exceptions, when George H. W. Bush ran for president, he claimed to be a hometown candidate in a preposterous number of different states.)RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whilst I disagree with WP:POINTY nominations, I think that PlanespotterA320's point has in fact been proved. We are applying double standards to well-known honours from Anglophone countries against not so well-known (to Anglophones) honours from non-Anglophone countries. As I have been saying for a while, this whole issue needs to be addressed centrally and not in piecemeal nominations of categories in CfDs that hardly anyone notices, which is then taken as consensus to nominate further categories. My take on it is, of course, that all such honours are defining, whatever country awards them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that PlanespotterA320's point has in fact been proved. Keep votes that do not bother to address the definingness issue should be discarded. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wait... wut? - wolf 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this nomination has changed anyone's mind, but I agree that it would be good to see this discussed centrally; it is pretty clear that people voting for keep and people voting for delete have different interpretations of OCAWARD and of what counts as a defining award, which suggests that there isn't actually consensus about what the policy means. Furius (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the fundamental disagreement, isn't it. What we consider defining clearly differs. Your definition of it is much narrower than other editors'. You can't call for votes to be discarded just because you don't agree with the principle behind them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a total violation of our overcat by award rules. Categories like this have lead to insane amounts of category clutter and need to be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the nomination, people in this category are not notable for achieving this award nor does it magnify their fame. They're notable for other stuff (higher awards, high ranks, non-military career). So WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who thinks an honour like this is non-defining really doesn't understand the meaning of the word "defining". Non-defining for whom? Winning a gallantry award is as (or more) defining as being born in a particular town or in a particular year, being from a particular ethnic group, attending a particular school or university, serving in a particular branch of the armed forces or doing a particular job. Which makes me repeat the question I have asked many times: what would you categorise? If you want to get rid of all categories just say it. If you don't, why do you think some are arbitrarily defining and some are not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — In case of doubt, better to err on the side of inclusion. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2021 (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.
