Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Category:Albums recorded at A&M Studios[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Category:Albums recorded at A&M Studios

Kidnapped children[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep Indian, Japanese and Swiss, now containing 3 or 4; merge the rest for now, as they still only contain 1 or 2 pages, so potential for growth has not been demonstrated.– Fayenatic London 10:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 to 3 articles in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. Should these also be merged to the appropriate "FOOian children" category? Or are those just meant to be containers for subcategories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the children who were kidnapped later became an adult. Putting them in "FOOian children" is only appropriate if they did not survive the kidnapping. That can/should be done manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In all these cases there is clearly scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly? Please explain. (Note that with a growth rate of articles of 10% per year it will, on average, take 17 years before a current one-article category reaches 5 articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cpmment Difficult case. I do understand nominators WP:SMALLCAT. But would Category:Kidnapped children not take enormous size, 1 cat for the whole world? And how come that people who never ever would become notable for an encyclopedia just get an article b/c being part of a kidnapping? It's also an ethical question if people should be labeled as eternal victims of crime. I'm not happy at all neither with this cat nor with the merger. --Just N. (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the parent category would certainly not become enormous, it will contain a few dozen articles at most. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the kidnapped children category would still be small if all contents were merged into it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm open to having a few small countries to finish out a by country breakdown, but the vast majority of this tree is anemic so it doesn't aid navigation. The dual merge to "Category:Kidnapped Fooian people" means any interested reader would still be able to find the articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weak keep. Many of those are about the subjects from other countries than English and have plenty of scope for expansions, since many articles are simply not translated. There is no reason to assume that there are fewer notable kidnapped children by country; keeping Category:Kidnapped American children but deleting Category:Kidnapped Indian children‎, despite India's population being 4x that of US, is, to me, a clear example of systemic bias. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why that was done either. But looking over Category:Kidnapped children, I see that Category:Kidnapped African children was not nominated either, so my first thought was that maybe the plan was to leave the continent ones in place (which would mean the american one would need to be renamed to North American). But the I see that the subcats of the africa one were not listed either. So my best guess is that this is merely the first round of nominations and that more are forthcoming? I dunno. I don't have much of an opinion on these myself, but if they are not kept, I think upmerging them by continent, unless/until the rest are nommed, might be helpful. - jc37 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the nomination I did not include country categories that contain at least 4 articles, so that is the reason why the African countries have not been included. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 12 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.

Ancient Greeks in Macedon[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/Delete - jc37 14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, the categories suggest that this was a kind of emigration, but in fact the articles in these categories are about people living in an era when Macedonia was part of the Greek civilization, so there was nothing special about Greek people in ancient Macedonia. Note that Thessalia and Epirus were immediate neighbors of Macedonia and just as well part of the Greek civilization. If kept, rename "Macedon" to "Macedonia" per article title Ancient Macedonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete/merge per nom. Macedonian (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or/and merge as well, per nominator. Wikipedia needs to avoid such "Macedonians and Greeks are different people" political POVs which is communist propaganda of the previous century, not supported by any contemporary academic consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Expatriate categories, which these functionally are, should not be applied into the ancient world. There is no unified ancient Greek polity for Greeks to be functioning outside of. This clearly does not work or make sense in Macedonia. Do we have Category:Ancient Greeks in Egypt. That might make sense, but this one does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge last 2 as nom -- I am not sure that these are in fact expatriate categories, as JPL seems to think. SilentResident raises an important issue. The present North Macedonia is a Slavic state. The Balkan wars (early 20th century) resulted in the Ottoman province being split between Greece and others (subsequently Yugoslavia). Ancient Macedonia was a Greek polity, as were Thessalia and Epirus. It might avoid confusion to call it Macedon, but that is an issue for another day. I am not clear what inclusion criterion for the first is, but merging to Category:People of Ancient Macedonia might be an option, rather than delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 21 March 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:Judges of the Uttarakhand High Court[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_28#Category:Judges_of_the_Tripura_High_Court Rahul Bott (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Probably allright. Even if 'Justices' isnt easily recognized as placeholder for 'judges' in other parts of the world beyond India. --Just N. (talk) 00:05, 26 March 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:Television series about size change[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not clearly or consistently defining of its contents. As usual with "[Media] about [X]" categories, the problem here is the distinction between whether the show is genuinely "about'" X, or whether it just happens to incorporate X as a plot device within a show that is primarily "about" something else. For instance, the category includes Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures -- but while Pac-Man is a character who we all know possesses the ability to temporarily grow in size and kill the ghosts when he eats the power pellet, the size change is not itself the core subject of the Pac-Man franchise. It also includes The Simpsons, which has once or twice used character shrinkage or growth as a standalone gag but is in no sense whatsoever "about" that. And then there's Big John, Little John, a show about a character age-reverting to childhood, so that the "size" change is at best a secondary byproduct of the age change, and not the thing the show was "about" in and of itself. And on and so forth: just because a TV show uses size change as a plot point doesn't necessarily mean the show is about size change per se -- so the category is simply too subjective to stand. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these "about" categories are inherently WP:SUBJECTIVECAT because there are no WP:RS objectively telling us how much about the subject the media must be, nor any WP:RS to indicate that the article to be categorized is at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what is size change? At first I thought this is related to obseity issues. Note that we also need to get rid of the parent Category:Fiction about size change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose picking off just one medium from Category:Fiction about size change; the whole hierarchy should be considered together. Also, this plotline is clearly defining for some stories e.g. Ant-Man or Fantastic Voyage; where it is only incidental to some category members, just remove those. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic london's argument. The category just needs to be limited to articles where size-changing is not limited to a single episode or so. Dimadick (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic london's argument. -- Just N. (talk) 00:46, 26 March 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:Uncategorized articles needing expert attention[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looking at the code of {{Expert needed}}, it seems only Category:Articles needing unspecified expert attention is being used currently. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:00, 19 March 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:Characters of the Slavic Cabinet Mythology[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 for now. If an article gets written like be:Кабінетныя багі і духі беларускай міфалогіі then a justifiable catdhory be re-created easily enough. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't decipher the name of this category or the connection between the articles in it other than them being from Slavic folklore. There is nothing on Wikipedia about "Slavic Cabinet Mythology". A Google search only brings up results from this category on Wikipedia or mirrors. The contents are already in other appropriate Slavic folklore categories so no upmerging is necessary. MClay1 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are scientific publications about each character in this category that such a deity did not exist. They were introduced into the Slavic deities by mistake in the 19th century. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: But what does the name mean? Is it a translation? There isn't anything in the articles that deals with this. MClay1 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This means that these characters were not among the people. They became characters as a result of the mistakes of some researchers. And then these mistakes were repeated many times. This is well stated in the Russian Wikipedia and in the five-volume edition of the Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's missing context, "cabinet" seems like a bad translation. Using the title of the corresponding category on the Russian Wikipedia, Google Translate suggests the word could be "armchair". Either way, this information is not self-explanatory or common knowledge, so I think the articles need information about it backed by reliable sources before we can safely categorise them as such. MClay1 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify if wanted - Even just looking at this discussion, it seems obvious that the inclusion criteria is murky at best and this would be much better as a list, if anything, so to better explain each of the entries, per WP:CLS, etc. - jc37 20:34, 8 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.

Category:SZA (singer) songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per page name; page previously determined as primary topic. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:56, 19 March 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:Songs written by SZA (singer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per page name; page previously determined as primary topic. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:56, 19 March 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:Ethnic issues in Japan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only Wikipedia category for "ethnic issues in Foo". In fact we don't even have Category:Ethnic issues nor any article or even a redirect for ethnic issues (which is just a wesaely synonym for racism). This is just a weird outlier in Category:Racism by country. See also Talk:Ethnic_issues_in_Japan#Requested_move_19_March_2021. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 19 March 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:2003 Texas redistricting[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) 02:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having been responsible for getting a bunch of categorized articles merged into the main article through the AfD process, I can see now that this category is sparsely populated as it is at this moment. Therefore, I suggest deletion. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The two articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:52, 26 March 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.

Things in Fez, Morocco[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 - jc37 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These were opposed in the speedy section as creating a redundancy in category names; also mentioned was that it would be less concise and intuitive. The rationale for renaming is per C2D, to match the main article Fez, Morocco. The category for the city is Category:Fez, Morocco, and the other subcategories of it are also in this format, including the parent category of these, Category:Buildings and structures in Fez, Morocco. The general practice is to follow the head article name in categories even if omitting a disambiguator would not render the category name ambiguous. See, e.g., Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state). As for WP:CONCISE, it is part of the guideline for article titles, not category names. As for being less intuitive, I think this is subjective. It can just as easily be argued that it is less intuitive for subcategories to refer to a city in a different way than the parent category refers to the city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose, I should have brought this up earlier during a similar speedy rename had I been paying closer attention, but these renames are unnecessary as "Fez" is not ambiguous in this context (obviously there are no gates, mosques, and palaces in a Fez hat, and there are no other notable cities named Fez) and therefore adding the disambiguator to further categories is redundant. I'm struggling to see that C2D would require that every single category under it automatically needs to include the same disambiguator as the main article after it's redundant. So adding ", Morocco" to every Fez city subcategory makes the category name less WP:CONCISE and slightly less intuitive for readers. Some of the main article equivalents of these categories may have, or have had, titles without the disambiguator (e.g. Gates of Fez before it was merged to Fortifications of Fez) and other main-space articles about subtopics of Fez now and in the future would likewise lack the disambiguator, so doing this may actually create inconsistency that violates C2D in the long term. Not the end of the world if this goes through, but it looks like extra work for nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not strong opposition but still opposed as per reasons stated in speedy discussion. As per conventions in WP:CATNAME: "Standard article naming conventions apply", so WP:CONCISE is of course still applicable. As for "Fez" on its own being more intuitive, I think that's common sense: it's why articles like History of Fez, Fortifications of Fez, and Architecture of Fez don't include "Morocco" (which is also why this could create C2D inconsistencies of its own in the future when such subtopic articles are created). Because the original ambiguity was between a city name and a very different semantic category (a hat), the ambiguity isn't extensible in the same way as it is for two identical place names (like Georgia). That said, I agree the best reason for simply continuing with this move is that it's already done for other subcategories so far; if the opposing arguments are applicable then it's reason to simply change course and maybe revert to more concise names in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Fez, Morocco and Category:Fez, Morocco. This is both C2C and C2D. The whole point of C2C and C2D is that one does not not have to undertake exhaustive research to establish whether 'This&that of Fez' is ambiguous, one simply follows the name of the parent category. Oculi (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per WP:C2C, consistency with main article's name. The whole point of that speedy process is we don't second guess the WP:RM process for main articles in WP:CFD discussions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to follow the main article, which is Fez, Morocco. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per WP:C2C. --Just N. (talk) 00:55, 26 March 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:Wars by year subcategories[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 per option A, i.e. as originally nominated. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Speedy — C2C Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Category:Years by war
They were opposed by @Oculi:: "this is not a subcat scheme so the cfd does not apply."
@1234qwer1234qwer4, Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, and Justus Nussbaum: as prior participants.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these are set categories and the present names describe their contents perfectly. I am not sure that Category:Wars by year should be a parent for these. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, years are a splitting criterion for war as the primary topic. Otherwise rename to e.g. Category:Timelines of World War II since Timelines may serve as the primary topic of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Normally, once something is tagged, we don't bother to tag them a second time. If you are so concerned, why didn't you update them yourself?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the case if you remove the categories from WP:CFDS. Now the only tag on the categories links to a place, where they are not even mentioned. (I am under no obligation to tag these, that's the nominator's responsibility.) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is that written? Technically, they are all at the same Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. You spent more effort griping than it would have taken to revise the template. If you complain, then it is your obligation. You have made yourself part of the process.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag also links to the right section so it is very useful to have a correct tag on the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Marcocapelle, but how often does anybody come via the tag? After all, it is visible on the CfD page, even though not linked to the specific subsection. It just bothers me that an experienced editor would waste our time posting complaints, rather than just fixing problems. That's what I've done, and I've seen you do. Lost whatever remaining respect for him. Anyway, I'd already updated them some time ago, so I'm going to collapse this irrelevant side discussion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 19 March 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:Krishnan Medal recipients[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Krishnan Medal is is an Indian geology award. The recipients tend to mention the award in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem defining like with Krishan Lal Kaila, Vinod Kumar Gaur, and Sampat Kumar Tandon. There category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 19 March 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:Winners of the Queen's Award for Voluntary Service[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Queen's Award for Voluntary Service is given to charities in the United Kingdom like the British Red Cross, Talyllyn Heritage Railway, and Seagull Trust and the articles are a mix of those that mention the award in passing, in the lede or not at all. In the more developed articles, the award tends to be much less prominent so it doesn't seem defining, especially considering over 1,500 organisations have received it. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 19 March 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_March_19&oldid=1018874705"