Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10[edit]

Category:Quantum electrodynamicists[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, merging content to Category:Quantum physicists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Quantum electrodynamicist" is not a term normally used. Nearly all modern physicists accept Quantum ElectroDynamics, but this category is not useful or informative. Please stop adding physicists to this category until it gets wider acceptance. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term means a field of study, not a view. Similarily, there is a category 'Quantum physicists' which includes people working in the field; not every physicist works in it. --Tarnoob (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, if the category isn't kept, shouldn't it be merged to its parent Category:Quantum physicists? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply This is a brand-new category, just created by Tarnoob a few hours ago. The only members of this category are people that Tarnoob has added to it -- in the case of Dyson at least by changing the Category:Quantum physicists into Category:Quantum electrodynamicists. I have asked physicists of my acquaintance about this. People who work on QED are not referred to as "quantum electrodynamicists." Shut this down please, before there is more of a mess to clean up after. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Maybe it should be renamed – e.g. 'Quantum electrodynamics researchers', similarly to, say, 'Loop quantum gravity researchers' and a lot of similarly named sub-categories of 'Researchers'? Or, 'Quantum electrodynamics physicists', but I'm not sure if it's grammatical. --Tarnoob (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with HouseOfChange regarding the merging. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge — as proposed. As soon as this is decided, we also should consider Category:Loop quantum gravity researchers.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:19, 12 January 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:Order of Saint Michael[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: while there were users in favour of keeping these, I found that the arguments in favour of deletion far more accurately reflected the guidelines found in WP:OCAWARD (which is really a sub-guideline of the broader WP:NONDEF): "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". It's clear from how articles address these awards that this high standard has not been met in these cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Some of the many orders of chivalry awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. They are rarely mentioned in the articles, and are certainly not regarded as significant. Rathfelder (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason they're is an attempt to delete them is because people don't understand what these are, and that is the reason why they are no in the articles. Awards and honours of these type define the behaviour of great houses, e.g. royalty, aristocracy, religious, dynastic orders that exhibit alliances, trades, accords and marriages and agreements that sometimes go back centuries. It bothers me greatly that nobody understands them, then becomes... just get rid of them. Lets not. The reason that people don't understand them, is folk are usually not privy to it, unless they are either work in a very specialist area of academia, or are they're part of a grand family or group, dynasty of whatever type, is in. Any kind of reading in depth in these areas will show you that. Wikipedia is severely lacking in these areas and including medals and awards. Sometimes types of awards, which is kind of modern version of these are so prestigious that people who are already at the top of their field, work tirelessly and selflessly to achieve them. Lastly has no checked the articles, e.g. House Order of Fidelity. That is super-weight honour, that you cannot get. It is like hen's teeth. This dude Max von Bock und Polach has an iron cross and associated categories. Iron crosses were handed out the like water, nobody cared about them, but only 10 people have the House Order of Fidelity award. I think we should would cherish these wee small categories. It would be absurd to delete them. scope_creepTalk 00:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles I see about European nobility generally have half a dozen of these categories. None of the articles I have read - many hundreds - say anything more than listing the awards, and mostly dont even do that. Often there is a picture of someone who has not actually done anything significant with a load of medals on his chest. I'm not proposing to remove the articles, and most of the articles have long lists of those given the awards, which seems a more appropriate way of dealing with them. If we get rid of the categories which relate to the awards which were given out easily we can leave those which are actually significant. Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of these categories come even close to meeting the very, very, very extremely limited circumstances in which having a category is notable. There is a very high bar for including awards received as a category, and these awards do not meet that. Just to choose one example Frederick William III of Prussia is in 33 categories, 3 of which are nominated here, and that is not all the award categories he is in. We do not need to categorize everyone by every award they ever received. This is not justified in how it is being done currently and leads to way too much category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep categories about the Order of Saint Michael and the Order of the Holy Spirit. These were the highest ranked orders of chivalry in France at the time of the monarchy. About their defining status, you can hardly find an era portrait of a member of the order without prominently displaying its distinctive light blue sash (and not among a Soviet-style library of medals):
Place Clichy (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'a a very pretty sash, but is Richlieu in any way defined by it? Is it mentioned in the article? It would be more defining if he wasn't awarded it. Rathfelder (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Place Clichy makes a point that many important people had it and were proud of it, but all these folks were notable absent it which disproves that it defined them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep U.S. Coast Guard Commander Elmer Fowler Stone even had his award of the Portuguese Order of the Tower and Sword engraved on his tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery.
– Maliepa (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that may be so, he was known as a naval aviator and a commander in the United States Coast Guard, not as an award winner. Regardless what is on his grave, it is not defining from an encyclopedial perspective. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Category clutter" isn't a thing. File systems are effectively global and have been for some time. It doesn't exist. There is no reason why there is shouldn't be a category per award, it just needs work, to make it work. It puzzles me why folk don't see the value here, when it staring everybody in the face. Perhaps you have not read widely enough. It also seems curious that if it wasn't that important, in each portrait they wearing every award they have. They seem to think it is important. scope_creepTalk 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont know what "File systems are effectively global" means, or why you think it relevant. But there certainly are plenty of complaints about over-categorisation. It doesnt help anybody to give monarchs and nobility half a dozen title related categories, mostly not mentioned in the articles, which do nothing to show why the person is notable, or why they were awarded. Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I look at those same portraits where they collect "chivalry" awards like stamps or Pokémon cards and think how absolutely irrelevant they are since it's usually just an inevitable result of being born a high ranking noble, which they generally are already categorized for. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are proud of them. Why is it that they are still given out by boat load, by every Monarch in the world. There is a famous quote by Napoleon: Give me enough medals and I’ll win you any war Here is a another one by Napoleon. Men will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. I could spend between six and 12 hours, do some research and find some quotes by Prince Adalbert and his love of medals. Here is a page on [1] the Kaiser, a relative. Look at the busts. They have the medal carved in the busts. scope_creepTalk 12:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment about "collecting" these chivalry awards on portraits cannot be more wrong. The Saint Michael collar was the only collar ever worn over ecclesiastical dress in French monarchy times. Of course the orders of Saint Michael and of the Holy Spirit were awarded to people of a very high social status, but the opposite is not true: the order was very exclusive with a limited number of knights, like the order of the Garter, and few people even of high birth could expect it. Place Clichy (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All These area not generally defining to these people and generally reflect rather than created their notability in the article space. In the category space, they are adding non-defining categories that do not aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. As with all such awards, a list makes far more sense than a category - details such as date of award and reason for award can be added, making for a much more useful list. Why people go create a category rather than a list in the first place baffles me. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- These are senior national awards from a period when awards were not given with the frequency that they are today. These are different from the diplomatic honours given by one monarch to another, but to those particularly recognised as notable by kings at the time. At worst, listify, but there may be a case for keeping them on the basis that the number of holders at any one time. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 17 January 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:Lionsgate Television drafts[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. I too thought there was no categorization scheme for drafts. Perhaps a discussion about these categories would be in order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not need a separate page as the link Legendary Television is a redirect to Lionsgate, as there are currently 2 entries. Starzoner (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Starzoner: Your links are mixing Legendary and Lionsgate. Is that intentional? -2pou (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol mistake. Please retract this. Thanks. @2pou: Starzoner (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I was under the impression that we do not categorize drafts. When did this change? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 10 January 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:Sony drafts[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) 23:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sony covers lots of topics, not just films and television shows. Its subsidiary Sony Pictures deals with them.

Entirely composed of tb and films, this isn't just a Sony draft article, but strictly a Sony pictures category Starzoner (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Everything within is from Sony Pictures, so while the existing is correct, the nom is more precise, especially if anyone starts sorting Sony HW, etc. -2pou (talk) 22:21, 17 January 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:Shaykhavand[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and in the spirit of WP:C2F, the only article is about Isa Khan Safavi or Isa Khan Shaykhavand. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 10 January 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:Talk podcasts[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING because almost all podcasts are "talk" podcasts. The genre is more relevant to radio shows. A discussion to move the category to "Unscripted podcasts" led to the problem of WP:X or Y. Prior discussion at the Wikiproject. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the purpose of the category is entirely unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NONDEFINING; almost all podcasts are based on talk. Not all, but most, and a category containing nearly all podcast articles doesn't provide much assistance to people. -2pou (talk) 20:26, 12 January 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:Scripted podcasts[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING and WP:X or Y. Prior discussion at the Wikiproject. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the purpose of the category is entirely unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NONDEFINING and to avoid potential subjectivity as pointed out in the linked discussion. -2pou (talk) 20:19, 12 January 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.

Education buildings by city in Sri Lanka[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is an almost empty category layer except it largely duplicates the tree of schools. There is no other country with a tree like this. If this merge goes ahead, I will nominate the education buildings by district as well, it suffers from the same problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a unnecessary layer. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had to click through several to see what you meant but, yeah, this is redundant. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:34, 13 January 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.

Mayors of places in Romania[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with no prejudice against re-creation if and when these categories get bigger. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these places would have had more than five mayors, most are NN. No objection to recreating any category later if they ever have 5+ potential articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:36, 13 January 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:Sicilian-speaking people by occupation[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with only two subcategories this is a redundant layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I have my doubts that the category itself is justfied. We very rarely categorize people merely by the fact of the language they spoke.
  • The parent category should also be a container category for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. I would say that the category is justified, given that the subcategories are for writers and singers in that language. There seems to be a tree of similar categories for many languages, specifically for occupations related directly to the language (e.g., interpreters, translators, writers, and singers). If consensus is to delete Category:Sicilian-speaking people by occupation, then a serious look needs to be taken at all the other subcategories of Category:People by language and occupation. Grutness...wha? 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove redundant layer -- The whole tree needs pruning. We have singers, poets, 1 cabaret actor, and one other author, who probably does not write his main works in Sicilian. We can keep singers and poets as subcategories, but everything else should be in the target. It may be some dual upmerging is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 17 January 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:Wydad AC footballers[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) 23:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's clear that the club's article mainly discusses the football team, and as a results it's not necessary to include footballers in the category's name instead of players. Also to match other sports clubs in the continent mainly known for their football team such as Category:Al Ahly SC players and Category:C.D. Primeiro de Agosto players. Ben5218 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; parent article is about the football team and we use just 'players' for those categories. GiantSnowman 18:47, 10 January 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.

Raja Casablanca 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

Requesting the name of these categories to be changed to match the parent article Raja CA. All should have their name changed to include Raja CA instead of Raja Casablanca. Ben5218 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, you need to list the other categories related to the club as well, and tag their pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ben5218 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 10 January 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:Miss Grand International 2018 contestants[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The page did not meet WP:GNG. The mother article Miss Grand International was salted and deleted multiple times via consensus. Other related pages to this pageant were also deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination).

Nominating also for bundled deletion:

---Richie Campbell (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, you need to tag all listed category pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richie Campbell: Please tag these. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile they all have been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason to categorize people by being in a specific competition in a specific year. This is the very definition of a performer by performance category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining, per nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 12 January 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:Touhou Project Main 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I checked the contents, and all of the articles were already in Category:Touhou Project games, so there was no merge that was required. I'll leave implementing the rest of what was discussed to Zxcvbnm or Marcocapelle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect capitalization, as "main series" is not a proper phrase, but a descriptive one. — Goszei (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems needlessly complex compared to just deleting this category and making a new one, then moving the necessary games over.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it should be merged rather than deleted. From there we might also create a new subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell the category is a total overlap so there is nothing to merge. If there is something to merge, of course, merge it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware of the existing video game spin-off catscheme – I support this solution as well. — Goszei (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support this solution (regardless of how exactly it is carried out on a technical level) as the standard way of categorizing game series with spin-offs and off-shoots.--AlexandraIDV 08:39, 16 January 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:Charlemagne Prize[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: upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
This category only contains two articles and I'm not sure they belong together:
1: Charlemagne Prize: A prize for European integration issued by Aachen, Germany starting in 1950.
2: European Charlemagne Youth Prize: A youth prize for European integration issued by the European Parliament starting in 2008, but named after and coordinated with the earlier prize.
The two articles already cross-linked and I can't imagine a potential 3rd, 4th or 5th article so the growth potential here is limited. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I updated the nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not need the eponymous category. The recipients have already been listified and deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 10 January 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:Genesis 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
The Genesis Prize is an Israeli award given to "Jews who have attained excellence which they attribute to Jewish values". The articles for winners like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actor Michael Douglas, Kraft Foods CEO Robert Kraft, and musician Itzhak Perlman mention the award in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem generally defining. Most of the award's coverage is around the large purse (US $1 million) which is typically re-donated by the winner. The contents of the category are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 10 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_10&oldid=1051296337"