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:Units and formations of the Union Army from Alabama format. There wasn't a strong consensus for this, but it seems to be the best option based on the discussions. There was no discussion of the non-state ones, so I'm renaming those as nominated, with the caveat that I am using "units and formations" to match the others (rather than just "units"). If these non-state categories need to be adjusted, a follow-up nomination should be permitted. This discussion was closed in conjunction with this one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion. More inclusive noun; existing noun "regiments" doesn't adequately cover other unit types like battalions and batteries. I have proposed adding the word "territory" to the category if the place indicated was not a state until after 1865. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all- Nomination solves two errors - the miscategorization of battalions/batteries/etc as regiments, and the faulty naming of the territory ones. Hog FarmTalk 01:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Am relieved that this is a group nomination, unlike the previous attempt. Am concerned that "unit" is an Americanism and would have favoured "military units". But as these are all American anyway, I'm not concerned enough to oppose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:00, 24 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:Heads of government who were later imprisoned[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. (To the debate I would add that the fact that a person is imprisoned does not necessarily mean that they were convicted of a crime.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that category tree already exists, and heads of government who belong there are already in that tree, sorted by type of crime. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There may be scope for purging this of those whose imprisonment was unrelated to their time in office (where the intersection would be trivial), but I suspect that many will have been imprisoned for alleged misfeasance while in office, as slightly nicer than assassination in the course of a coup d'etat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Monarchs imprisoned and detained during war[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.
Weak oppose, the target contains an anachronistic term, "prisoners of war" did not exist yet during the lifetime of many of these monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
rename Capture of a monarch by opponents in war is something quite different from an ordinary prisoner of war. Some were victims of a lost civil war. Others of international war. James I of Scotland was captured by the English to prevent him reaching France, though I am not sure that England and Scotland were at war at the time. Charles I and Maximillian both ended their lives by execution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Iron Crown (Austria)[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.
Delete Clicked through quite a few articles and these tend from German states and mention the award in passing. The Iron Cross seems much more prominent in these articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All of the category contents are now listified within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the highest state honours of a major country, usually used to honour its own citizens. It carried automatic ennoblement. Of course it was defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 28 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 Order of St. Andrew[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.
Delete I can't tell if all the foreign recipients received the award as a diplomatic souvenir or as distant relatives since the royal families were so intermarried. Either way, the articles offer no hint as to why it was awarded and it's treated as non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I just added a list of the recipients to the main article, Order of St. Andrew, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting a category for reciients of the highest honour awarded by a major country? Utter madness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 28 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:Gabonese expatriate basketball people 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.
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to Category:Expatriate basketball people in the United States per WP:SMALLCAT. Gabon is a relatively small population country (2.1 inhabitants) with few expatriates in the United States. There are no other sportspeople expatriates with articles and only 3 expatriates with articles overall. User:Namiba 13:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category rests on a misconception, that various Christian Neo-Aramaic dialects are varieties of and/or descended from Syriac language, which is untrue. As stated by linguist Geoffrey Khan, "Neither the Jewish nor the Christian spoken NENA dialects appear to be direct descendants of the earlier literary forms of Aramaic such as Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic and Syriac."[1] Turoyo is not NENA, but it is not descended from Syriac either, see[2]. Any subcats can be recategorized into Category:Syriac language. (t · c) buidhe 08:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The term Syriac used to be used for a Biblical language that is not Hebrew. If appropriate a rename/merger to link it to Northeastern Neo-Aramaic might be possible. I suspect this is a case where "fools rush in", which is why this is not a vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge to Category:Syriac language, the content of this category should have been under there regardless of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge per Marco. Relying on a single opinion treads dangerously close to WP:OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:08, 24 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:Indian Institute of Technology Madras alumni[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 for now. If the article space name changes through a re-opening of the RM or a fresh RM, the categories can follow.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main page was renamed to IIT Madras from the lengthy Indian Institute of Technology Madras. Also see category Category:IIT Bombay alumni as an equivalent to what I am requesting. Thanks VV 07:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I have added the 2 other Madras categories, to which the same rationale applies. This also applies more widely as most are now named IIT: see Category:Indian Institutes of Technology. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would not biing the alumni being renamed, but abbreviating IIT in the main article is obscure to non-cogniscenti, which is why WP discourages abbreviations. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was part of the discussion related to the use of the popular name over the official name. Currently, there is a redirect from the official name to the popular name. VV 05:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striken given the RM flaws described below. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Substatively, this wrong: the abbreviation is obscure.
Also, this is a procedural mess. It appears to have started with Talk:IIT Bombay#Requested_move_23_October_2020, where the nominator @Roller26 listed two IITs, but specifically stated in the rationale that the proposal was to apply to 17 other unlisted IITs. That is no way to build consensus: if other pages are involved they should be listed.
In this case, Indian Institute of Technology Madras was moved[3] to IIT Madras as a result of a technical request by Roller26. The technical request can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=986726653 ... where Roller26 falsely asserts that each of the moves requested is As per consensus determined on Talk:IIT Bombay#Requested move 23 October 2020. Not true: that discussion could not reach a consensus on unlisted pages.
Two other editors screwed up here:
non-admin @Buidhe should not have closed the RM[4] as "moved" when it was procedurally flawed
admins Anthony Appleyard should not have accepted the technical requests on the basis of a false assertion
My close applied only to the specified move, as it had gone on for 7 days and was unopposed. Perhaps I should have relisted it, but I never intended this close to apply beyond the exact pages specified as I did not read "Similar is the case with all other 19 IITs." to include any other moves—one would have to apply separately to have those moved. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard, did you actually read what I wrote above? The discussion at Talk:IIT Bombay#Requested move 23 October 2020 listed only 3 pages, related to 2 IITs. The RMTR[5] which you implemented listed over a dozen other pages which were not listed in the linked RM, but which were each individually annotated As per consensus determined on Talk:IIT Bombay#Requested move 23 October 2020. It seems you did not spot that the rationale which @Roller26 gave for for the RMTR was false, and those pages should not have been moved by you. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the proper procedure was not followed. If there is an issue with the RM of 17 IITs, it should be reopened. However my main point (which was not properly articulated in the RM itself) is the clause In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. in MOS:ACROTITLE. A vast majority of Indians (probably most South Asians), anyone connected with technology and engineering fields around the world know the abbreviation IIT but few recognize the full name, hence my RM in the first place. Roller26 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. There was no "RM of 17 IITs". There was a (poorly attended) RM of 3 articles. It does not grant a precedent to move other pages, you have to file a separate move request. Perhaps we should overturn all the article space moves and list all "IITs" together to see what the consensus is on naming. (t · c) buidhe 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant. Either relist all articles or all articles minus 3 (IIT Bombay, IIT Delhi, List of IIT Bombay people). Roller26 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Indeed, the abbreviation is obscure. If formally needed please revert the abbrev decision of the article name. --Just N. (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the website. The name IIT Bombay is the popular name thought Indian Institute of Technology Bombay is the official name. VV 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural support per the new status quo in article space. However I have no issue with putting this nomination on hold if an RM is initiated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. Do you really think that receipt one of the main honours of Denmark is not defining for its Danish recipients? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clicked through quite a few articles and this usually gets a passing reference in a list of other honours. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. See Order of the Dannebrog. This is one of Denmark's main orders of chivalry, which now occupies a place similar to that of the UK's Order of the British Empire. I see no case for piecemeal picking-off of national orders of chivalry. They should all be considered together, and singling out an order from a small non-English-speaking country is no way to achieve consistent decision-making.
Please note that I am generally not a fan of awards categories, but I am even more troubled by the way in which systemic biases are unintentionally privileging the honours system of some countries. This needs an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
When we've had group CFD noms with small list of awards, concern is often expressed that distinct awards are being conflated; I can't imagine a meaningful outcome from an RFC trying to discuss the hundreds of diverse awards in Category:Orders of chivalry as a group. I share your support for avoiding bias and simultaneously want to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing more nominations for more countries. Some awards are defining and others are not which lends itself to individual consideration in CFD just like we do with other topics. - 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Necrothesp and BrownHairedGirl. --Just N. (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Furius (talk) 17:52, 29 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 Order of the Redeemer[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.
Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining to the recipients and creates category clutter. Classic WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note The category contents are now listified in the main article, Order of the Redeemer, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the Romanian and Luxeumbourgish awards below, when we look at Greek wiki (see [6]), we find that the award isn't just for foreigners, that there are loads of notable individuals with the award, who are mentioned as having received the award in their articles, and thus it makes as much sense to have categories for this as for the OBE. Furius (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of domestic articles from Greek Wikipedia is certainly relevant but the articles there don't treat this award as defining according to Google translate (1, 2, 3). Keeping this category under WP:OCAWARD assumes a double hypothetical: that English Wikipedia will eventually get some of the same articles and those articles would treat the award completely differently. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't find the first a difficult hypothetical at all, and the existence of articles in other langs is clear evidence that the category has room to grow - we don't need to be certain that it will grow tomorrow. And the articles you cite mention the awards in comparable detail to, say, Eugene Gorman's status as an Category:Australian Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire. I just can't see how this can be anything other than one rule for Anglophone honours and one for other languages. Furius (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not really sure what you need for "treat as defining". We have loads of person categories for things that are only mentioned briefly in an article (year of birth, place of origin, the school that they went to, date of death). Furius (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: I think they actually want to delete categories for all honours. They're just starting with the non-Anglophone ones because they think there'll be less opposition. Then they can claim that consensus has been established and go after the Anglophone categories too. It's a well-established tactic for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of those really seem germane to a discussion about national awards. The purple heart seems equivalent to the Polish one for all resistance fighters and the order of Belize is relevant, but it's specifically an award for foreigners. It's absurd to claim that "Texas Sports Hall of Fame" or a drinks company's basketball awards are in the same category as national awards. It's not obvious that category policy should be decided by Emperor Akihito, even if the clutter on Emperor Akihito were actually a problem (which it's not, really... on my set-up, half the category clutter is "Hidden categories", none of which do anything helpful for me, but I deal). And if it is a problem, then it's not going to be resolved only by deleting the six categories that have been nominated so far; it's going to require the deletion of around twenty to really make a dent, and in that case then it should be done as a group nomination, as I have said. Furius (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one WP:OCAWARD for government awards and a different WP:OCAWARD for private awards. You claimed honours from English speaking countries were not being nominated so I provided examples. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been stated, these are not "proper" honours. Please compare like with like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Star of Romania[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining to the actual recipients. Diplomatic souvenirs are classic WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Order of the Star of Romania is an important and notable award, at least in the Romanian context. It surely is a defining characteristic for most recipients of the award, and it deserves a category by itself. Turgidson (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note The category contents are now listified in the main article, Order of the Star of Romania, so no information is lost. - 01:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be awarded almost exclusively to foreign heads of state (especially since 1998 restoration). Furius (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC) (revise to: Keep per comments below; clearly this is defining for the Romanian awardees and they are not as few as I believed. If the categorisation can cope with Margrethe II of Denmark being in the Order of the garter, than it can cope with this award being given to foreign heads of state and to actual honorees Furius (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: That's mostly true for the foreign recipients of the award (basically all in the highest ranks), but evidently not true for the domestic recipients. Looking at the list of domestic awards from 1999 to 2013 for the top rank (Grand Crosses), only two were Prime Ministers (one of those awards was later revoked). The others are artists (Radu Beligan), directors (Andrei Serban, Lucian Pintilie), writers, academics, religious, military, or civic figures, etc. This becomes even more pronounced if one looks at the other ranks, or at the older awards. Turgidson (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was working from the list added to the English wiki article, but comparing the number of domestic vs foreign awardees in the article you just linked sort of reaffirms the sense that it is mostly awarded to foreign dignitaries for whom it is non-defining. I don't know how one deals with a category that is defining for some but not for others... Furius (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, as I said, this is only the case for the most prestigious classes of the order, which tend to be ceremonial for foreign recipients. If one looks down the line, say, at Category:Officers of the Order of the Star of Romania, out of 36 recipients listed there, I can detect only 2 not born in Romania or thereabouts: Jan Karcz, a Polish Colonel who perished at the Birkenau concentration camp, and Raoul Magrin-Vernerey, a French Foreign Legion officer; the rest are mostly Romanian officers, though some are civilians. The same pattern holds for the 42 recipients listed under Category:Knights of the Order of the Star of Romania of the foreign ones, I can only detect Colin Robert Ballard, a Scottish officer in WWI, Pierre de Coubertin of Olympic Games fame, Samuel C. Cumming and Thomas Hunton, officers in WWII, and Richard W. O'Neill, who served in the US Army in WWI. I would argue that hardly any of these awardees can be characterized as foreign dignitaries. And, for Sergeant O'Neill at least, the award is prominently displayed in that article, with the mention: "Ordinul Steaua României with swords with the ribbon of the Military Virtue Medal (to denote bravery in action) degree of Knight (Romania)", with inline citation to a book reference. I would argue that that makes it a defining characteristic in this case -- not on the same level as the Medal of Honor that he received for his actions, of course, but a notable distinction, nevertheless. Turgidson (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One clearly keeps it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCAWARD is looking for an award to be defining to a large majority of the notable recipients. Even if, hypothetically, this award is defining to non-notable people, that doesn't change our category discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that there are no notable domestic recipients. Rather, the notable recipients tend to be foreign which is the actual category contents we have before us today. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are 42 individuals in the "knights" class with articles on English wiki, 93 on Romanian wiki (see Categorie:Cavaler al Ordinului Steaua României), all presumably notable given that they have articles, so I don't think this washes. Furius (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And 37 of the 42 (88%) are Romanians... — BiruitorulTalk 18:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we agree that foreign recipients are not defined by diplomatic souvenirs, domestic recipients still need to be defined by the award under WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as any award can define someone, the receipt of a nation’s highest and oldest civilian honor would seem to be defining. — BiruitorulTalk 19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with limitations. It is, after all, the highest award handed out by the Romanian state, is highlighted in recipients’ biographies, is the subject of controversy (even lawsuits) when withdrawn, has a storied history going back practically to the moment of Romania’s independence. So it absolutely is a defining characteristic.
Having said that, “delete” voters do raise a valid point: foreign recipients seem to receive it as a routine courtesy rather than anything of deeper significance. The solution is simply to define the category as covering only Romanian recipients, perhaps including foreign ones on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, that’s a debate for the normal editing process, not a matter for deletion. — BiruitorulTalk 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does "the recipients" in this context mean "all recipients", "most recipients", "a majority of recipients", "some recipients", or "a few recipients"? I gave a whole bunch of explicit examples in my comments above that I submit definitely rule out the "all recipients" interpretation. I'll readily concede that this award is non-defining for "some recipients", but aren't they all, in some sense? So I presume the only remaining debate should be whether "some" means "most" or "a few" for the Order of the Star of Romania (the foremost award for this country, as has been mentioned above). Based on the discussion so far, and the preponderance of the concrete evidence offered, I'll go with non-defining for "a few" or "some", but definitely not a majority, or most, or all of the recipients. Turgidson (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCAWARD is very clear about that: A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sure. But that still begs the question: how does one decide that for the "large majority" of the awardees the award is not a defining characteristic? I argued at length that that does not seem to be the case in this instance, by giving all sorts of examples. What is the evidence to the contrary? It's an honest question. Turgidson (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Radu Beligan, your very first example, does not mention the award in the lead but rather in the very last line. You might argue that the wp article is a very poor representation of reliable sources in this respect, feel free to do so, but generally awards are either given to people who are notable for much better reasons than the award, or given to people who are not notable enough to have a wp article at all. In either case it is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom, no potential for expansion (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The one article is about a ruler with whom Lord Edward had diplomatic relations. He did not actually participate in the crusade. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining to the vast majority of articles. Clicking through the articles, it usually gets mentioned in passing. Many participants seemed to receive it semi-automatically based on their rank/title/position. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note All the category contents are now listified in the main article, Order of the Oak Crown, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the Romanian award above, it only appears that this is an award primarily given to foreign dignitaries because of our poor coverage of people from Luxembourg; the Luxembourgish category for knights of the order (Kategorie:Chevalier de l'ordre de la couronne de chêne) contains 137 people with articles. Furius (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination isn't based on WP:SMALLCAT and, while the nom lists foreign recipients, there are plenty of domestic ones in these English categories.. In any case, the articles in Luxembourgish Wikipedia don't treat this award as defining according to Google translate (1, 2, 3). - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Brilliant Star of Zanzibar[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award. Generally mentioned in a list of awards if at all. Not remotely defining to individuals such as Aga Khan IV, Otto von Bismarck, or Isma'il Pasha. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike some others, this was a state honour awarded to people who had rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every CFD discussion of a disease, award, occupation, political title, or other biography category is Wikipedia editors deciding what is defining to an individual. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given as a diplomatic award or to high ranking people in Zanzibar. Not defining to either group. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I previously listified all the category contents into the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:53, 25 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.
