Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

March 25[edit]

Category:Caesarea (Israel)[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 to Category:Caesarea, Israel - jc37 16:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although there is a disambiguation page Caesarea (disambiguation), Caesarea is the primary topic. If not accepted as the primary topic, then reformat names as Category:Caesarea, Israel (like Category:Acre, Israel). – Fayenatic London 22:03, 25 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:Springfield College (Massachusetts)[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article (Springfield College). User:Namiba 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose b/c probability of a lot more Springfield Colleges in the US or Commonwealth have to be taken into account. Just hazard they haven't come on the scene. And certainly it's useful to have the location by naming the US state. --Just N. (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you "haven't come on the scene?" Springfield_College_(disambiguation) clearly shows that this is the only institution by its name, though there are some with similar names. --User:Namiba 15:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 25 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.

Former countries on the Italian Peninsula[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: option B rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency. Note that the name "Italian states" in Category:People executed by Italian states was chosen earlier in this discussion, but perhaps some editors in the discussion overlooked Place Clichy's comment about the existence of Category:Former countries on the Italian Peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged, Place Clichy, Carlossuarez46, Good Olfactory, Rathfelder, Peterkingiron, Justus Nussbaum, Johnpacklambert, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors in earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was working on Italian categories for a few weeks and never noticed the existence of Category:Former countries on the Italian Peninsula, and although that is perfectly logical Category:Italian states generally appears in the literature and the articles, so I think we should go with the Italian states options. And of course not all the states were really on the peninsular. Venice extended right round the Adriatic. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B I prefer "Italian states" as it is commonly used to denote the pre-unification countries which later made up Italy and would include Sicily, Sardinia, Venice, and other non-Peninsular areas (Genoa, Milan) but exclude other "countries" that occupied the Italian peninsula in ancient times: the Roman Empire, various Greek city states, Etruscan city states, and things that technically fit the definition of "former countries on the Italian Peninsula" but don't fit "Italian States". Another formulation if "former countries..." is the end choice is the one used by List of historic states of Italy which as its name, and "former countries", suggest starts from way-way-way back. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per Carlossuarez46 rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have added two sub-cats to the nomination. Note that it might look more strange to have Category:Kings of Italian states over Category:Kings of Italy. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the royalty categories are fine like that. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, but with the addition of the qualifier 'historical', i.e. Category:Historical Italian states, etc. as the current Italian Republic is also an 'Italian state'. --Constantine ✍ 08:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A' b/c unmistakable. I'd guess there are a lot of Wikipedians that are more influenced by the American example: USA are composed of states. So similarly Italian could be seen as composed of Venetia, Umbria... To avoid such false associations Option A is necessary. --Just N. (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "...historic states of Italy" per List of historic states of Italy. This should address the concerns about ambiguity, noted above. - jc37 16:13, 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.

Category:HuffPost bloggers[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) 03:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category. Contains a few celebrities (Bill Gates, David Cameron), a few people notable for opining elsewhere (Cenk Uygur) and a few random other people based on the interests of the category creator. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have to add this note to my previous comment. By the argument User:Jc37 is making we should also delete Category:Bloggers and all of its subcategories. If this category is not defining, then Category:Fashion influencers and Category:Video bloggers and Category:YouTube vloggers and Category:YouTubers and Category:Writers of blogs about home and family are non-defining as well. A person who claims that "HuffPost blogger" is not defining, then he/she should explain that why "YouTuber" or "Writer of blogs about home and family" is defining. It is verifiable: We can verify whether or not a person is a HuffPost blogger, by checking his/her HuffPost profile. By the argument a number of users in this discussion are making, we have to delete the section HuffPost#Unpaid bloggers too. Tens of articles such as John Conyers have been wrongly categorized with Category:HuffPost writers and columnists. Many of them are not HuffPost writers or columnists but they were just HuffPost bloggers.Wasraw (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We could probably verify that John Conyers ate a sandwich too. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we should have a category for that. And while it may sound cool to/for the HuffPost to have these celebrities blog at their site, somehow I don't think that it's defining for the celebs in question. If there is journalism being done in a blog (like reporting news), then, as I said, we already have categories for that. quite a few apparently. - jc37 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear jc37, Can you give an example of a reliable source, which seriously titles a professor or an activist as a sandwich eater?Wasraw (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear jc37, could you please answer this question? Should we or shouldn't we delete the following categories. I believe they have the same problem you are talking about: Category:Bloggers, Category:TikTokers, Category:Christian bloggers, Category:Anonymous bloggers, Category:Feminist bloggers, Category:Science bloggers, Category:Fashion influencers, Category:Video bloggers, Category:YouTube vloggers, Category:YouTubers, Category:Writers of blogs about home and family, Category:Environmental bloggers, Category:Patreon creators. If you convince me that we have to delete them, then I will support deleting them.Wasraw (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not investigated those, and so, currently I have no opinion on them.
    But consider this. There is a difference between a Celebrity who skis, and a professional skier.
    But lets look at this from another perspective, blogging is just a medium of communication. How is this cat different than categorising everyone who wrote an editorial for the New York Times? Those too would be verifiable. And might make for an interesting list. But they would be a disparate group of individuals, writing on a myriad of topics. Not something we should be categorizing together. - jc37 19:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear jc37, do you know that there are people who were professional unpaid HuffPost bloggers? For example: Wil Wheaton. Like you, I don't agree with using this category for people like David Cameron. But there were people who used this platform as one their workplaces, Like a professional YouTuber.Wasraw (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I might suggest that Wil Wheaton is indeed a celebrity. and even might agree that he is an internet personality. but I'm still not seeing how him editing a blog at the huffpost website is any more defining for him, than categorising his Comicon convention appearances - less actually... - jc37 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear jc37, In 2015, Wil Wheaton stated that he refused to allow his work to be reused for free on the site.[1][2]Wasraw (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are Celebs who have requested that their faces not be used on lunchboxes. Not sure what that has to do with categorising someone by some site they chose to opine at? - jc37 20:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear jc37, the fact that a large number of HuffPost unpaid bloggers sued HuffPost, makes the blog network even more notable.Wasraw (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, see this category: Category:Twitch (service) streamers. I think Twitch is as famous as HuffPost. For example Anthony Alfredo who is a car driver is categorized with Category:Twitch (service) streamers. By your argument we don't have to do that.Wasraw (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear jc37, we are humans. We learn by repeating. We discover a phenomenon by seeing it repeatedly. If we see that a person writes editorial to NYT regularly (repeatedly) then yes we can title him as a regular editorial writer to NYT. Wasraw (talk) 20:08, 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.

Category:Wellcome Book 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a literary award, which is being used not just to classify winners but also shortlisted or longlisted nominees. I'm formulating this as a "delete or purge?" question, because I'm not personally familiar enough with this award to take a stand as to whether it warrants winner categorization or not — but regardless of whether or not we deem an award notable enough to keep winner categories, we most definitely do not ever apply award-related categorization to non-winning nominees, not even for super-mega-notable awards like the Booker or the Oscars. So at best this needs to be purged of all the non-winning entries and retained only for actual winners, and at worst it needs to just be deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD (preferably) or rename and purge to Category:Wellcome Book Prize winners in order to avoid that nominees are added again. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OCAWARD states 'should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients', this seems to be the case for many of the recipients. One other option to make more clear would be to have subcategories for award winners and award nominees. John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree that this is a significant award for recipient careers. Subcategory for nominees would be ideal.--GeneralBelly (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A subcategory for nominees would absolutely not be "ideal": there is no other award in existence — not even the Booker or the Oscars or the Nobel Prize — for which we categorize non-winning nominees as such. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clicking through the winners, they are already very prominent and generally mentioned the award with other honours which falls well short of WP:OCAWARD's requirement that "should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". (There are billions of people on Earth that did *not* win and they are not remotely defined by not winning so rename and purge per Marcocapelle if kept.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this seems a significant award for recipient careers. But purge all those short list and long list names for being WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 12:50, 1 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:City nicknames by city name[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 both - (Category:Lists of city nicknames has been tagged for renaming for 10 days as well.) - jc37 17:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's a category of lists, something the current title doesn't bother to mention. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 25 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.

Anti-Catholicism by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles per category. Incidentally articles may be manually merged to a subcat of Category:Catholic Church by country but most articles really do not belong there. Some articles may be added instead to a subcat of Category:Protestantism by country. The subcategory of Category:Anti-Catholicism in Japan is already deeper down in the tree of Category:Anti-Catholicism so it does not have to be included in the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could be be dispersed to new "by continent" categories? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there is a lot of room for growth in many of these categories, such as possible expansion of anti-Catholicism during the Spanish Civil War, or in the Socialist and Indigenous movements in Latin America. Maybe one or two of these categories could be merged, but by and large in my opinion WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to add more articles to these categories (provided anti-Catholicism is a defining characteristic, obviously) and I will withdraw relevant categories accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and purge it has groups or victims of groups that are against Western ideologies that are more in the nature of anti-all-Western-religions or anti-Christian, and not specifically anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant. Those articles should be purged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all for Now These aren't aiding navigation today but no objection to recreating later if they show the growth potential Inter&Anthro anticipates. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think Inter&Anthro is talking about potential expansion, but noting that the categories are missing articles which already exist. He has mentioned specific movements of the past which were Anti-Catholic but are missing from the categories. For example the Spanish Constitution of 1931: "The new Constitution, among other laws, is described as having been anticlerical. While it afforded broad civil liberties and democratic representation, it abolished privileges associated with the Catholic Church, and did not explicitly protect Roman Catholic interests or rights. As anticlerical sentiment had been growing for decades, it culminated in escalating mob violence against the Church which the new government was unable to curb. This resulted in severely strained church-state relations, noted as a significant cause of the breakdown of the Republic and of the Spanish Civil War." 04:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
      • Anti-clerical is not the same as anti-Catholic. As the word says anti-clericalism is against the clergy (and is often a political issue), anti-Catholicism is against Catholicism as a whole (and is often a religious issue). Most occurrances of anti-Catholicism can be found in Protestantism and in Eastern Orthodoxy, Spain is an unlikely place to find it. Anti-clericalism on the other hand does not even have to be against Catholic clergy per se (although it is used in Catholic context most of the times). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for being unclear and an invitation for partisan and opinion entries which propagate victim role of catholicism. E.g. the new law changing developments in Ireland after finding out about cath. clerical child abuses etc could be such a cat. For WP:Neutral's sake: Delete! --Just N. (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all for now but without prejudice as to their later recreation should volumes merit it. 19:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
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:Execution[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and redirect as WP:OVERLAPCAT. I will put Category:Executed people into the other parent Category:Killings by type, although that one may also need reviewing. There may be scope for a category on summary executions, which would belong in Category:Extrajudicial killings by type. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories that are largely overlapping. Execution redirects to Capital punishment. There is nothing in the nominated category that couldn't reasonably be in Category:Capital punishment, and in fact much of it already is. Retaining a category redirect could be reasonable. This is a creation of User:Stefanomione, which may mean something to some users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the nominated category focuses on the execution of executions, the parent category also on e.g. legal and broader society aspects of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If we have one article there is no reason to have two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge they can be combined without disturbing the fabric of the universe. Capital Punishment is a superset of execution but some of the subcats like executed people, execution methods, are common to both - the target also has some more breadth about anti-capital punishment, its interaction with religion, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If we have one article there is no reason to have two categories. --Just N. (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these are not substantially overlapping. Execution is more broad than capital punishment. For example, Summary execution is a type of execution (synonymous with extrajudicial killing) but is not a form of capital punishment since it is usually for political or other opposition rather than in punishment for a crime. Capital punishment is defined in its wiki article as "the state-sanctioned killing of a person as punishment for a crime". But executions may be ordered by non-state entities such as insurgent groups. If this merge goes through it would necessitate a thorough rethink of the subcategories since incidents like Beheading video, Paul Marshall Johnson Jr., Jürgen Kantner, David Haines (aid worker), Muammar Gaddafi, Nicholas II of Russia, Tukhchar massacre, etc. (found in various subcategories) are not capital punishment. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This merely leads to the conclusion that the term "execution" is ambiguous: it usually means execution of capital punishment but in certain context it can also be equivalent to killing. It may be useful to create Category:Summary executions for cases like Nicholas II (not as a subcategory of Capital punishment). But it is not yet clear to me why these Summary executions are a reason not to pursue the proposed merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 11 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:Royal Guelphic Order[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) 03:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The German Kingdom of Hanover issued the Royal Guelphic Order as house order. Because Hanover and Great Britain were in personal union and shared a monarch for almost 200 years, the vast majority of recipients are British with no connection to Hanover or Germany. Commander of Australian Forces Robert Nickle, Scottish surgeon Charles Bell, and English linguist Graves Haughton are not remotely defined by this award. (Even amongst the small minority of recipients associated with Hanover, the award just gets a passing mention: 1, 2, 3.) Two of the classes were already in separate list articles and I created a collapsible list for the third right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a violation of award category guidelines. Albert, Prince Consort the husband of Queen Victoria is in 22 award categories, and that is not even a record.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Albert seems to have been removed from about 8 such categories over the last few months. This is madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, the fact that Prince Albert is in this category makes it a category that should be deleted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one really is ridiculous. This order was used by Britain as well as Hanover to honour people who had genuinely achieved something. Many British generals and admirals were knights of the order and used it as a postnominal. Of course they were defined by it. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. If we're not careful and allow these deletions, we'll soon be told that British honours "aren't defining" and shouldn't be categorised, despite the fact the titles and postnominals are routinely used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this was given out widely in England to people with no connection to Hanover is the basis for the nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of an encyclopedia is that you learn something about a topic. Categorization requires defining characteristics to ensure you learn something more about the characteristic by reading the articles. But articles about recipients of an award hardly ever provide any additional information about the award, for example they hardly ever mention the specific reason why someone was receiving the award, they hardly ever elaborate on the event of someone receiving the award (although there are some exceptions like with the Nobel prize). All of that also applies to the award categories nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 13 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:Recipients of the Nicolau Lobato Order[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) 03:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
We don't have an article on the Nicolau Lobato Order but all three of the articles in this category are politicians from East Timor who are already well categorized somewhere under Category:East Timorese politicians. The articles mention the award in passing and it doesn't seem defining. I listed the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a violation of award category guidelines. Albert, Prince Consort the husband of Queen Victoria is in 22 award categories, and that is not even a record.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I think they have explained the problems with this category pretty well. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand WP:OCAWARD. If it is applied across the board, all categories such as Category:Companions of the Order of Australia would have to be deleted. Awards in specific fields, such as film/drama or the Nobel Prizes, could be considered defining within that field. However, civilian awards, such as Companion of the Order of Australia, are usually given to people within a variety of fields who have achieved eminence in that field and are recognised by their country for their contribution. It is not a defining characteristic of each individual person - it's an honour bestowed *because* of their existing defining characteristics.
As for not having an article about the Ordem Nicolau Lobato [de], that does not mean it is not notable, just that no one has written it yet in English Wikipedia. There may only be 3 people in the Category:Recipients of the Nicolau Lobato Order so far, but the German Wikipedia category has 24 people, not all of whom are politicians. The small number in this category in English Wikipedia seems to be more a question of the small number of articles about notable East Timorese people than anything else.
I thought the point of categories was to help find information, such as people who were born in a certain year, in a certain place, have a particular occupation, or have received a particular award. As Help:Categories says, "Categories allow readers to navigate through Wikipedia and find related articles." As WP:OCAWARD is written, this category and many others would need to be deleted, but I question whether doing so would actually help readers navigate Wikipedia and find related articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: Just saw your question. I certainly don't think the Nobel Prize or Order of Australia categories are non-defining. We also have many categories like the ones we deleted for the Order of the Smile and Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame that make navigation difficult by creating category clutter. If I look at the 35 award recipient categories at the bottom of the Emperor Akihito article, I see more Orders of the Smile than Orders of Australia. Based on WP:OCAWARD I've been working to carefully move some award recipient information out of the category space and into the article space so that no information is lost. (The same information can work in one but not the other because of the different inclusion criteria: WP:DEFINING for categories vs. WP:NOTABLE for articles.) It's tougher here though since there's not a main article in which to listify the category contents. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 6 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.
  1. ^ Wheaton, Wil (October 27, 2015). "you can't pay your rent with "the unique platform and reach our site provides". Archived from the original on October 28, 2015. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  2. ^ Huckeba, Stacie (December 6, 2017). "The Top Ten Reasons You Should Work for Free – Unless You Are Wil Wheaton". HuffPost. Archived from the original on May 3, 2020. Retrieved April 27, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_25&oldid=1021895285"