Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 6 September 8 >

September 7[edit]

Category:Principals of St Edmund Hall[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Principals of St Edmund Hall to Category:Principals of St Edmund Hall, Oxford
Nominator's rationale: per main article St Edmund Hall, Oxford and main category Category:St Edmund Hall, Oxford. BencherliteTalk 23:26, 7 September 2010 (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:2000 AD creators[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2000 AD creators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per the widespread consensus against categorizing creative people based on the projects/franchises for which they've created, a form of overcategorization. Nominated once previously back in 2007, bizarrely closed as no consensus despite 4-1 being in favor of deletion, opposition based on the utility of the category (an argument to avoid in deletion discussions) and the deletions of three functionally identical categories two hours earlier. I've seen no indication that the consensus against this type of category has changed in the intervening years. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2010 (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:Freestyle rappers[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. This is a category with nearly impossible criteria. When a freestyler gets big enough to record an album, they likely are writing things down, and thus ceasing to be freestylers. Defining categories in the negative is rarely a good idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Freestyle rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category that violates WP:NPOV, none of these rappers are famous for freestyling. Secret account 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know virtually nothing of rap nor do I care to, but if there are some rappers for whom freestyling is a defining characteristic then the category is legitimate. If the people currently in the category do not belong, the appropriate course of action is to remove them from the category through normal maintenance, not delete the category. If a rapper can be reliably sourced as being a freestyler then inclusion in the category does not violate NPOV. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a couple in there, but like 95% of the list are not known or famous for freestyling. Secret account 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there rappers who are not currently in the category who are known as freestylers? If so then put them in the category and remove those who aren't. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about every notable hard-core rapper is in the category, if you aren't in the category, and you are an hard-core rapper your basically unnotable. Secret account 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hear you quite saying that all non-freestyle rappers are non-notable, but you seem to be coming pretty close. Is that why this is a neutral point of view question? Would it be like talking about white 19th century American politicians? Would it just take one significant counter-example to destroy the rationale, or would you need a passel? --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then remove the 95% who aren't defined as freestylers and leave the category in place for the 5% who are. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Freestyle rapping is a notable topic. Dew Kane (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't really care if it is kept or deleted. However, if it is kept, the category should explicitly state that it is for rappers that are primarily known for their freestyle rapping. These types of categories tend to have a slippery slope where everybody gets included. Basically if a rapper is kinda-sorta a freestyle rapper, he shouldn't belong to that category. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2010 (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:Public accounts scrutineers[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. Ruslik_Zero 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Public accounts scrutineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - created quite some time ago and named Category:Public accounts. In a very old CFD discussion it was renamed to the present name. The argument that carried the day was After a cursory glance, it appears to contain bodies and individuals who scrutinise public accounts. That seems to me a valid subject to want to use to categorise articles.... I question whether it is. Fully populated this would include every treasurer of every government treasury at every level, every member of pretty much every legislative body or at those on a finance or appropriations committee, any number of NGOs that review public expenditures and so on. The category contains only five articles (possibly because no one knows what a "scrutineer" is) so it's not being utilized to any degree. Is it worthwhile keeping this around given its lack of use but with its largely unbounded scope? I tend to think not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2010 (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:Indian national agencies[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:Executive branch of the Indian government. — ξxplicit 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Indian national agencies to Category:Government agencies of India
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplication. Although national agencies and governmental agencies are not synonyms, the guidelines of the nominated category says "Indian government agencies". If kept, all Indian agencies categories should be reorganized, e.g. category:Government agencies of India should be a subcategory of category:Indian national agencies. Beagel (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 7 September 2010 (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:Tudor people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename the first two using the Foo of the Tudor period format, which results in the third being kept as is. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tudor people to Category:Tudor period people
Propose renaming Category:Tudor clergy to Category:Tudor period clergy
Propose renaming Category:Women of the Tudor period to Category:Tudor period women
Nominator's rationale: Rename - the lead article is located at Tudor period and Tudor is ambiguous. Could be interpreted to mean members of the Tudor family. Or if "Foo of the Tudor period" is preferred, rename the people and clergy categories to that format. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Foo of the Tudor period" as these were GB people, where there is a general reluctance to throw nouns together. Occuli (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nominator's suggestion. Support renaming per Occuli's suggestion. --Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Foo of the Tudor period" per, um, everybody. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (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:Tadmor Prison[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. The category seems redundant. It is not part of a categorization scheme and is unlikely to be expanded from current two articles. Ruslik_Zero 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Tadmor Prison to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is not needed for the titular article. Merge to whichever parent or parents are deemed appropriate. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to merge here. Plain delete - the article is appropriately categorized. East of Borschov 09:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge - category is useful. The category is there as an incitation to create other articles in it, similarly to stub articles. The category contains more than one article. The category contains a non-titular article. The category links, and is linked by, another language category. Nnemo (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't how the category system is used. Categories are created when there are articles to warrant it, not made in the hope that someone will see that they are small and manufacture articles to fill them. With the new article on the massacre there are now two articles, which is still a small category. What are the realistic chances of expansion? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Wikipedia guideline has notable exceptions and deals with categories which, by definition, are and will always be very limited. This is not the case here. Nnemo (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former detainees, movies about it... whatever... Nnemo (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prisoners are not generally categorized based on the prison and even if they were it would be something like Category:Prisoners of Tadmore Prison and not just the bare facility name. Again, should there be a sudden outpouring of articles related to the prison then deletion can be reconsidered. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that there is an extensive and accepted subcategory scheme of defunct prisons by country, the sort of small category that the guideline contemplates. Whereas there do not appear to be very many categories named after prisons at all, let alone a widespread system of them. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Divisions should only be made where the volume of entries calls for it. Schema are for use where called for not indiscriminately. --Bejnar (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's for another discussion regardless. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2010 (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:South African politicians with criminal convictions[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South African politicians with criminal convictions to Category:South African politicians convicted of crimes
Nominator's rationale: Rename- in line with the parent and its American sibling. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (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:Jailed UK peers[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. It appears that this intersection is more trivial than a category should be. — ξxplicit 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jailed UK peers to Category:Peers of the United Kingdom convicted of crimes

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with other similar categories. This is the only category I could find that uses "jailed". Renaming also expands the abbreviation. Or this could be deleted if it's considered a trivial intersection. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK.QuAzGaA 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Teetering on the brink of trivial intersection. Its only analytic purpose could be if this categorises people granted peerages, then jailed for a crime, then still eligible to return and sit in Parliament (a controversial situation, e.g. Jeffrey Archer). Other situations make no sense, especially the likes of Duke Hussey whose only "jail" appears to be a POW Camp (thus entirely inappropriate for the proposed rename). AllyD (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Since we categorize POWs under an extensive POW system I pulled this article from the category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the UK it is (or should be) 'gaol' anyway. It is certainly a disparate collection of people. This sits uneasily amongst its siblings in Category:Peers of the United Kingdom and IMO should be upmerged/deleted. Occuli (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Imprisoned UK peers to cover POWs, and possibly earlier English and Scottish peers imprisoned without any actual conviction. Or exclude the POWs by note on the page - I don't mind. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above statement you should change it to Imprisoned UK peers to cover everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* None of the article categorized here appear to indicate that the jailing of any of these people has anything to do with their being UK peers. Categroizing on this basis appears to violate convention against categorizing against two facts that are unrelated to each other. Categorize them as peers. Categorize them as prisoners/detainees of the UK. Don't categorize them based on the intersection of the two. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per AYTCOP's comment immediately above. This is an intersection that is unrelated to the fact that they were a peer and unrelated to the fact that they were imprisoned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (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:Bodybuilders from Assam[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 to both parents. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Bodybuilders from Assam to Category:to both parents
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parent cats Category:Indian bodybuilders and Category:Sportspeople from Assam. No other national category of bodybuilders is subcatted by subnational division. Tassedethe (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger up per nomination. --Bejnar (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2010 (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:Silver Wolf and Bronze Wolf awardees[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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Silver Wolf awardees to Category:Recipients of the Silver Wolf Award
Propose merging Category:Bronze Wolf awardees to Category:Recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award
Nominator's rationale: Categories have the same purpose. "Recipients of the ..." is the commonly accepted convention for Wikipedia category titles relating to people upon whom decorations, medals and awards have been conferred and is therefore the preferred title to retain. AusTerrapin (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - a similar category for the Silver Buffalo Award was deleted in January 2007. The arguments against that award would seem to apply here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "Recipients of" is the common use. In response to the above comment, these awards are made much less frequently than the Silver Buffalo Award and are more defining for the recipients. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete all four - in considering this further these categories, while capturing recipients of an award that is apparently important within Scouting circles, are capturing people who are notable for achievements that have little or nothing to do with Scouting. There is a list for these awards and that suffices to present the information. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so for the two at issue here. Look at the articles on the awards. "The Bronze Wolf Award is bestowed by the World Scout Committee (WSC) to acknowledge "outstanding service by an individual to the World Scout Movement". It is the only award which the WSC bestows.". "The Silver Wolf is the highest award made by the The Scout Association "for services of the most exceptional character." It is an unrestricted gift of the Chief Scout. During the early years of the development of the Scout Movement throughout the world, it was the practice of the Founder, Lord Baden-Powell, to give the Silver Wolf to Scouters in any country who had done outstandingly valuable work for the Movement". These two awards are for very exceptional service within the Scout movement. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: And are unknown outside the Scouting movement. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few Scouting people who are notable enough to have WP articles. Being awarded one of these awards is a defining thing for these people. You are shifting ground. I was countering your statement "are capturing people who are notable for achievements that have little or nothing to do with Scouting". They are people who have a lot to do with Scouting. These categories do need to be better filled. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::: There used to be a good note at WP:OC about awards recipients categories which I wish were still there and I feel it applies to this instance. In considering an awards category, would the recipient of an award likely be introduced to a general audience as a Foo-award winner? It's certain that any of these people being introduced to a Scouting audience would be, but to a non-Scouting audience? Unlikely because few people outside of Scouting have any idea what this award is. I don't feel I'm shifting ground as there are people in the category who are notable for their activities outside Scouting and I never said that there weren't some people notable for being Scouts. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to drag this out, but I think it is quite likely if one of these Scouting folks was being introduced to a general audience to talk about something related to Scouting, then they might well be introduced as having been "awarded the Bronze Wolf Award for outstanding service by an individual to the World Scout Movement" to show their importance in the movement. The importance of the award would be briefly explained. Also all the people in these categories are or were Scouts, although a few were more notable for other things. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* The Silver Buffalo category was "revived" today, and I'm reasonably confident that it was "revived" based on its mention in this discussion without regard to the previous consensus against it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Buffalo had two CfDs, one keep and one delete within a couple of months of each other. I did not see a clear consensus either way (I would note for clarity that I was not the editor who recreated it). It got speedied after recreation, I asked the deleting admin to reconsider, and he restored it, only for another admin to come along and speedy it again without reference to the restoring admin. DuncanHill (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As part of WP:ODM and WP:CATP, I have been extensively involved in categorisation of orders, decorations and medals and it was in the course of categorising these that I raised a number of scouting award recipient categories for international and pre-eminent national awards as I considered these to be sufficiently notable within their field to warrant a category.
  • The WP:CLN guideline indicates that lists and categories are complimentary to each other, suit different peoples preferred modes of navigation and have a synergistic effect in building effective navigable structures. It also states that 'Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.' WP:PRIZE offers no guidance in respect of categories. The 'exception' bar alluded to in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients is vague and therefore highly subjective. Reference is made to examining the contents of Category:Award winners. An inspection of this category shows a wide variety of awards, mostly pre-eminent awards within their field at either a national or international level but there are exceptions to this (ie awards that are not pre-eminent). Many of the awards are only notable within their field.
  • Having now done some archive trawling, following comments by others in this CfM and including the development of the WP:CAT guideline, three things struck me. Firstly, the issue has been contentious over several years and consistently reappears - a 'combat indicator' that true consensus many not actually exist. Secondly, there is a self-referential argument that is used to shoot award categories down. The guideline was ostensibly agreed on the basis that common CfD consensus was to delete – whilst this may have been a frequent outcome, it was not clear that there was strong consensus for these deletions. Subsequent CfD deletions have then pointed to the guideline and attempts to change the guideline have been defeated by pointing to the common practice of deletion (justified using the guideline that the editor is seeking to have changed – Catch 22!) Delving into the contributions history of a sample of those participating in the various debates, the third thing that struck me was that the vast majority of those advocating a minimalist approach were predominantly involved in Wikipedia housekeeping. Certainly, in CfD and often in other areas and typically with only limited involvement in article editing and usually no involvement in categorisation other than implementing the results of CfDs. This was in contrast to those seeking change who were usually either article editors with the odd category edit or active category editors. This has introduced a systemic bias into the discussions as the CfD regulars drown out the arguments of the editor. Editors challenging the status quo are usually picked off piece meal, I suspect this is because those that would be inclined to support them probably do not regularly patrol CfD – like me, they are busy editing in the article and category name spaces and only visit CfD/CfM when they have a specific need. (Please note this is not an attack on anyone, it is just an observation on differences in viewpoint, the interplay with certain aspects of Wikipedia dynamics and the effects that this tends to produce.)
  • I appreciate the concern over proliferation of categories within articles and acknowledge that a blanket acceptance of all awards is ultimately counter-productive. The key issue is where the line is that warrants an award having its own category. Those arguing a minimalist position have often referred to whether the award is 'defining' to the individual. Whilst somewhat subjective, this certainly provides a more testable guide than the official guideline, however it is centric to the individual recipient and is therefore of limited value in determining the worth of the category. Logically, arguments about whether a particular award are 'defining' for the individual may only justify whether a given individual is included or excluded from the category, not whether the category itself should exist. There may be other individuals for whom the award is 'defining' thereby justify the category by that argument. This then presents the dilemma of whether to seek comprehensive inclusion (by adding those for who the award is ‘non-defining’) or to accept inconsistent inclusion (not ideal but since it is unlikely that all recipients will be sufficiently notable to have articles, the category would never have been comprehensive anyway). In the later case, there is still the risk that a well-meaning editor will add the non-‘defined’ recipient later anyway! Instead, I believe that a topic-centric approach is required and that the most appropriate criterion is the prominence of the award within its field (the historian in me rejects the notion that prominence must extend outside the field). This enables a more consistent outcome across all affected articles and provides a category hook for those who prefer to use categories. The precise level of prominence is then a legitimate subject for debate, however as an absolute minimum, I believe that awards issued by highly notable organisations warrant their own category where the award is a significant international award of the organisation or where it is the pre-eminent national award of the organisation for any given country. I use the phrase 'highly notable' not to suggest extensive third party reliable documentation but to suggest that the organisation is both notable (in the Wikipedia sense) and that it is widely recognised and respected within its field if not more widely.
  • If these criteria are applied, all the Scouting awards categories that I created are legitimate. The Scouting movement clearly qualifies as highly notable. The Silver Wolf Award is the pre-eminent award of the Scouting Association in the United Kingdom and in its early years doubled as the pre-eminent international scouting award. The Bronze Wolf Award was established as the pre-eminent international award of the World Scout Committee. The Silver Buffalo Award and the Order of the White Elephant are both pre-eminent national awards. Although I have not found conclusive evidence yet, I suspect that the Order of the White Elephant is also an Order of the Republic of India awarded by the state on behalf of the Scouting movement (in a similar setup to that which occurs in Thailand) as such it would also be subject to the sponsorship of WP:ODM. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per default treatment of applicable guideline on award recipient categories. There are good lists for these, so we may as well apply the standard treatment that is given to almost all awards categories that are nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, as AusTerrapin noted above, lists work for some readers and not for others. For myself, I find them much less satiisfactory than categories for things like this. There is no good reason not to have both. Some readers like to consult lists, others like to consult categories. Why can't we help both sets of readers? DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to default to the guideline. It reflects the consensus over the years. (Special rules don't apply to Scouting awards, and people tend to only speak up against the guideline when it affects a category that they themselves are fond of. I see no broad or general movement to change the guideline as it applies.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My argument is not exclusive to these scouting awards - it is much more widesweeping. The scouting awards are merely the topic under current discussion and they are merely incidental to my primary categorisation interests. Once this debate is closed, my intent is to propose a modification of the guideline, where I will be seeking input from key stakeholder WikiProjects. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The awards are for activities what should make the individual notability. Receiving the award is not what creates the notability for the individual. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete category -- This is the usual solution for award categories, except absolutely the most important ones. A list is much more useful as it can include the date of the award, and possibly details from the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Per comment above, WP:CLN indicates that lists and categories are complimentary - one can have both in order to reap the advantages of both! AusTerrapin (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it does not say you have to have both or even all three. The decision is on a case by case basis. In this instance, a case has been made to limit most awards to lists where additional information can be added and to avoid categorizing them. For many people articles, over categorization is a problem so I see no reason offered to abandon the current established precedents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, what the hell, after all readers don't matter. We really should delete all categories, there isn't one that couldn't be replaced by a list. I really don't understand the opposition to categories - they have no effect whatsoever on people who don't want to use them, and are helpful to those who do. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not see categorization as a problem for these awards as the holders are Scout people who do not have that many other awards. I fail to see a convincing argument to delete these categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that an admin hasn't closed this debate, when it has dragged on for nearly a month, is a good indicator that there isn't consensus for deletion. It was never nominated as a Category for Deletion - that was a suggestion by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet. Meanwhile, the original problem continues to exist - there are duplicate categories that should be merged. Other than some editors having reservations about any award categories continuing to exist, there appears to be consensus that the merge is OK. Might I suggest that we proceed with the category merge and take the wider discussion to a more appropriate forum to discuss what amendments to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients might be appropriate? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to me all of the keeps seem to fall into the WP:ILIKEIT logic. No really a good reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nice...to me, all of the deletes seem to fall into the WP:IDONTLIKEIT logic. No really good reason to delete. As I alluded to earlier, this is going round in circles — no one is advancing any new policy-based arguments, just rehashing the points that have already been made. Let's move on and have the real discussion that needs to be had in the location it should be had. It is quite clear that the way the existing policy is worded is inadequate — regardless of the position one takes on the issue. Depending upon how that is resolved, a CfD can always be raised later. I am trying to offer a reasonable way forward, for what has clearly become a deadlocked situation. AusTerrapin (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note - As there doesn't really seem to be a consensus developing here, I'm going to close this as a merge for now, as that does seem to have been agreed to. As this seems to be an ongoing discussion involving possible policy changes, please continue it, perhaps at the board mentioned above by AusTerrapin. If the discussion does not continue elsewhere, or a consensus develops that these should be deleted, please feel free to bring this back here as a deletion discussion. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (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:Deaths from throat cancer[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 and rename. Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Deaths from throat cancer to Category:Deaths from esophageal cancer
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Throat cancer is a disambiguation page and the category in question links to esophageal cancer as a piped redirect from "throat cancer" in the description of the category. It does not appear that tjose that died of Head and neck cancer are being included here. The existing category should be retained as a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and just reverse the soft direct, since it's probably a good idea to keep a redirect on the throat cancer one. Or it could be turned into a DAB category if we ever get one for people who died of head and neck cancer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom and GoF. Lugnuts (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. The category includes many uncertain cases of the past, like Ulysses S. Grant or Giacomo Puccini or Anton Ažbe. Puccini's case (1924) may be known to RS (yet unknown to wikipedia), Grant's was well documented but the root cause is all guesswork, Ažbe is just gone with no record. These should not be in esophageal, we don't really know (move to Category:Deaths from cancer case by case). East of Borschov 10:07, 8 September 2010 (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:Mayors of places in Yorkshire[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 1#Category:Mayors of places in Yorkshire. — ξxplicit 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mayors of places in Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No entries, unecessary, already covered by England and UK cats. Famousdog (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no need to split Category:Mayors of places in England by county. (It is not now empty but remains unnecessary so it should be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in England.) Occuli (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are enough of them with articles to support a dedicated category, then a city-level subcat such as Category:Mayors of Doncaster would be acceptable. But indeed, we don't need to separate them by county. Delete. That said, an article also does not need to be simultaneously categorized as both "England" and "United Kingdom"; in the absence of a city-level Doncaster category, England alone is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I have created Category:Mayors of Doncaster; both incumbents so far have been colourful characters. It is an elected position (since 2001) and is surely defining. Occuli (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I support the Doncaster category, but it should obviously be in the Yorkshire one. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single other "Mayors of places in (individual county)" category for any other county in the entire United Kingdom. Why would Yorkshire be unique in needing one? Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2010 (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:Case Closed movies[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Case Closed movies to Category:Case Closed films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard is to use films not movies. Tassedethe (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2010 (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:Biker Build-Off[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Biker Build-Off (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category only contains people who appeared on this TV show, so it is a case of categorizing performers by performance, see WP:OC#PERF. All these people are well-linked together by a template. Tassedethe (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2010 (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:Bioinformaticists[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bioinformaticists to Category:Bioinformaticians
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be the preferred name for a practitioner of bioinfomatics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noted on the category talk page in 2009, with no further comment made since then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (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:Speedway Defunct teams[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:Defunct British speedway teams. Ruslik_Zero 17:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Speedway Defunct teams to Category:Defunct speedway teams in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the correct categorization style in Category:Defunct sports teams and to more accurately describe the contents (contains, and is limited to, defunct British teams). Tassedethe (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the category is limited to British teams, is there really a need to add in the United Kingdom? — ξxplicit 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please relist for more discussion. - jc37 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 12:02, 7 September 2010 (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:Benelux Political parties[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Benelux Political parties to Category:Political parties in Europe
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is no Benelux category structure, simply upmerge to the parent category. Tassedethe (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2010 (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:Cannabis ministers[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. As the sole article is already categorized in Category:American cannabis activists, merging would create redundancy. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cannabis ministers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Vague and confusingly named category for a single Christian minister who happens to be a cannabis activist. Delete and recat the sole article (if it survives BLP prod) into Category:Cannabis activism. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2010 (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.

People by university or college in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of Arkansas to Category:University of Arkansas people
Propose renaming Category:People associated with Florida International University to Category:Florida International University people
Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of Oklahoma to Category:University of Oklahoma people
Propose renaming Category:East Carolina University's people to Category:East Carolina University people
Propose renaming Category:People associated with Tacoma School of the Arts to Category:Tacoma School of the Arts people
Propose deleting Category:Musical groups associated with Tacoma School of the Arts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match all other subcategories of Category:People by university or college in the United States. The musical group category has one member and is only weakly connected to that school (which is a high school, not a university).--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. 'people associated with' is an odd one for me and I d like to see this pattern be used WP wide (or alternatively 'people of', as a second choice) Mayumashu (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2010 (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:AP poll college men's basketball number one ranking[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AP poll college men's basketball number one ranking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not a defining characteristic of any of these teams and it's a purely trivial categorization. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (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:1954–55 NCAA University Division men's basketball season[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. — ξxplicit 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1954–55 NCAA University Division men's basketball season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete. It's incorrectly named (the category should be "1954–55 NCAA men's basketball season" because the "University" distinction didn't commence until 1956–57) and it's also unpopulated. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (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:Boxing Writers' Club members[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 1#Category:Boxing Writers' Club members. — ξxplicit 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Boxing Writers' Club members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Does not appear to be a significant club. In fact we don't have an article on the Boxing Writers' Club

Pichpich (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Odd and Frank Butler (both confirmed members) were leading British sports writers. The Club exists today and awards a prestigious 'Young Boxer of the Year' prize - a Google search on "boxing writers' club" will yield plenty of results, including mentions in national British newspapers. - (use: Gloveman 11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloveman11 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (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:1898–99 NCAA University Division men's basketball season[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1898–99 NCAA University Division men's basketball season to Category:1898–99 collegiate men's basketball season in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to the official NCAA men's basketball media guide, the 1895–96 through 1905–06 seasons should be called this. See {{NCAA basketball seasons}} for the links to the appropriate nomenclature for all of the seasons...this one is incorrectly named. The NCAA didn't even exist, and therefore this group of seasons was pre-NCAA regulation.

Jrcla2 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Agree with nom. The naming conventions for college basketball seasons has been set and I have to assume that the creator either wasn't aware or the standards were set after creation.
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.

NCAA men's basketball seasons[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 all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1941–42 NCAA Division I men's basketball season[edit]
Propose renaming Category:1941–42 NCAA Division I men's basketball season to Category:1941–42 NCAA men's basketball season
Nominator's rationale: See template {{NCAA basketball seasons}}; the split into "Division I" didn't occur until 1973–74.

Jrcla2 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Agree with nom on all. The naming conventions for college basketball seasons has been set and I have to assume that the creator either wasn't aware or the standards were set after creation. Rikster2 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAAUS seasons[edit]

Category:1906–07 NCAA men's basketball season[edit]
Propose renaming Category:1906–07 NCAA men's basketball season to Category:1906–07 IAAUS men's basketball season
Nominator's rationale: See the template {{NCAA basketball seasons}} – these are misnamed season categories according to the NCAA and its predecessor, the IAAUS, which is not the same thing.

Jrcla2 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Agree with nom on all. The naming conventions for college basketball seasons has been set and I have to assume that the creator either wasn't aware or the standards were set after creation. Rikster2 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (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/2010_September_7&oldid=1078928168"