Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22[edit]

Category:Film anthology series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename - jc37 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category header says "Film series consisting of anthology films", so we should reorder the words to contain both those phrases. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians against nationalism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created user category that unambigously violates Wikipedia:User categories#advocacy * Pppery * it has begun... 19:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Faculty by university or college and its subcategories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no conclusion here, please see the discussion on the category talk page, as linked below. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using "academics" would be consistent with Category:Academics. In addition I am open to the possibility that we need some local variations. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Faculty by university or college should be renamed to Category:Academics by university or college (WP:C2C) as it is a subcat scheme for Category:Academics. I am not personally convinced that there is any great problem with the national subcategories but would object to the introduction of terms other than the present choice between 'academics' and 'faculty'. Oculi (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent should certainly be "academics", which is surely acceptable for all ENGVAR options. If Americans want their national and subnational subcategories to be "faculty", the rest of us should not object. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I really do not think there is any reasoned objection to using academics in any sub-cat. However any category would have to actually be nominated to be renamed, so that will have to be done on a case by case basis. I do not see anything linguistically wrong with a category such as Category:Brigham Young University academics, and it might in the long run be able to be used a little more broadly than the faculty category. It is either the exact same, or a little broader. Some post-doctoral research fellows and maybe in some cases university librarians may be able to be classed as academics but might not be technically faculty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question are people who teach at a University automatically both "faculty" and an "academic"? Is that true if they occupy a purely a teaching position - no research? Is that true if they are guest faculty (either temporary, on loan, sabbatical, nontenure-track, or an artist/industry person teaching a "masters" class)? Does their title matter: lecturer? don? professor? and lastly, are administrators "faculty" and/or "academic" if they never had that experience prior to their administration appointment? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you bring this up? I do not expect that the outcome of the rename discussion will change the answers to these questions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination presupposes the equivalence of "faculty" and "academic" - I'm not sure that assumption is accurate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Carlossuarez46 is right and necessarily ask these questions. The potential for confusion is enormous in real lif and in the semantic field 'academic' and 'faculty' as well. OTOH I could possibly support the nominator IF 'faculty' would be strictly defined to comprehend all educators inclusive guest university lecturers and not at all limited to full professor positions who research and teach. How to mark unmistakably that definition? --Just N. (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume that both academics and faculty would both cover that, but I would also assume that they exclude people who have given a guest lecture on an incidental basis (i.e. excluding WP:PERFCAT cases). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose After the mess that happened with the bishop rename, I think we need to stop all category renames unless we can get a large consensus for them. Here we have way to few participants to decide anything. For me to be confortable with this, we really should propose the rename of some categories that have articles, this might actually get the level of participation we need. We need a clear majority and well over 25 people expressing opinions to even consider doing anything about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zionist activists[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, but this close is no bar to a further nomination covering relevant sub-cats. E.g. if it is to "purge and merge" Zionists to Zionist activists, then the sub-categories of Zionists by nationality etc would need to be brought into the nomination for renaming accordingly. This discussion is tending in that direction, but does not amount to a clear enough consensus to be implemented at the top and to justify speedy renaming of the subcats. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: *amended 23 March* These categories overlap but, as mentioned below, Category:Zionists is often an opinion category. I propose merging Zionists into the Zionist activist category and containerizing Zionists. User:Namiba 14:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zionists tagged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think you are correct. I am reversing the proposal and amending my original proposal.--User:Namiba 14:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually suggest containerizing (i.e. purging) Category:Zionists before merging rather than after. Many articles are about people supporting Zionism without being an activist. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:OPINIONCAT and the generally undefinable nature of "activists" categories. Our definition at activism basically sweeps so broadly that everyone who doesn't live as a hermit is an activist somehow. Moreover, per our article Zionism: "Zionism ... is both an ideology and nationalist movement among the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment of and support for a Jewish state centered in the area roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine, but whose borders as the Land of Israel would encompass a much larger area." So per our definition of Zionism, only Jews can be Zionists ("among the Jewish people"), and encompasses basically any support for Israel ("support for a Jewish state centered in the area roughly corresponding to Canaan") which can be no more than uncommunicated sentiment, voicing approval, travel there, or purchase of products from there, or anything that falls under "support". It seems to sweep much further afield than most undefinable categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zionism is more than just an opinion. It is a concrete movement with a plethora of organizations and activists going back multiple generations. Ya'akov Zerubavel and Theodor Herzl, for example, are described in their Wikipedia introductions as a leading Zionist activists. Ze'ev Jabotinsky is described in in this journal article as a Zionist activist. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls David Ben-Gurion a leading Zionist activist as well.--User:Namiba 13:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said of any "activist" category. Have you read our article activism to understand that activism can mean anything you want it to mean: "Forms of activism range from mandate building in the community (including writing letters to newspapers), petitioning elected officials, running or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes." So the extent of an activist's activism can be as miniscule as patronage or boycotting businesses, as I mention above. Of course, lots of sources can claim someone is an activist in support of their cause but we don't categorize on opinion and ought not on vague "activist" status. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you !vote to save the Trumpists category below by renaming it to Category:Pro-Trump activists, another category we ought not have? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Defining, how sources describe a subject is EXACTLY what we are talking about. "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..." So if sources consistently define someone as an activist, then they should be categorized as such. It's not an opinioncat because we are categorizing someone by their profession. WP:OPINIONCAT specifically says that activist categories are allowed. "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists)."--User:Namiba 14:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This has in some circles become a pejorative term used to attack all Jews. The current category can even when not used as a false synonym for Jews can too easily be tagged on someone who may have in personal private conversations expressed support for the creation of a Jewish state in the historical areas of ancient Jewish settlement but may never have done anything public, let alone consequential to support the creation of continuance of the state. We should limit this category to people who did clear public things to advance the cause of Zionism. We probably should not require that it in any way connect to notability, but it has to be in some way public. Unless maybe we can document that the person made substantial donations to Zionist organizations but it was not known at the time. We need something more than just internal personal belief.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Abbasid governors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two governors in each of these provinces have an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we sure that the Ray(y) and Kufa of Abbasid times are in fact the same as different times in history? Jurisdictions can shift quite dramatically in some cases.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are both very old cities, it is very unlikely other cities existed with the same name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All for Now per nom with no objection to recreating later if the article count ever grows to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All for Now per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fantasy films by format[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only Category:Fantasy anthology films. This does not need merging to the other parent Category:Films by type as the sub-cat is already in that one via Category:Anthology films. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Independent cities in the Philippines[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Repurposing category. (Non-controversial) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trumpists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OPINIONCAT. (Recently created; currently only includes Tucker Carlson.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although association with Trump is defining for people that worked in his campaign, real estate organization, and at the White House, mere support is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an opinion cat. The exact lines are undefinable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for exactly the reasons spelled out by nominator. This is a category that is basically impossible to define clearly. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe this term as any concrete definition among RS but is a work of WP:OR. CaliIndie (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OPINIONCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I'd suppose (like RevelationDirect above) that association with Trump IS defining, simply no strict criteria are given to avoid the emergence of an opinion cat which is undesirable. --Just N. (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male actors of English descent[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 (and the one merge). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated for deletion
  • Delete/merge all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In many cases this is going to be so far back, or one of so many ancestries, it will not be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  This is also WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, as different readers and editors will interpret this as variously meaning, broadly or narrowly, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, genetics, culture, or residence, of parents, of all ancestors, or of any single distant ancestor, etcetera. It is practically meaningless unless defined precisely, and if so defined would to more parallel category trees. —Michael Z. 16:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halt and relist individually, the changes being proposed here affects hundreds of articles. It's too drastic to be done in a single discussion.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual listing does not make sense when the rationale is the same for all of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the categories listed above, are there certain ones you think ought to be kept/deleted for reasons that don't apply equally to all of the categories, Prisencolin? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @207.161.86.162: please do not remove categories from the nomination, that is very disruptive! If you oppose certain categories to be deleted, just mention that here in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While mass nominating categories, or any pages for that matter, for deletion is within the guidelines, I don't believe it's a very constructive action in itself because it can quickly undo work that took years to accumulate and especially in the case of categories it can not be as easily undone without help from bots.--Prisencolin (talk)
      • If there is consensus to delete, it does not need to be undone. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining "descent" categories, per nom, per precedent, and per my oft-repeated reasons (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories for more context, if necessary). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Italian-American issue above would require only that we have Category:American actors of Italian descent, with male actor and actresses categories probably justifiable. That category was removed through a different decision. Even if we choose to recreate it, its existence does not force or justify an ill defined translation category. American actors of Italian descent as a non-list reliably sourced article is needed to justify this category, but its existence would not in any way show the intesection of being Brazilian, Argentine, Australian, or British and having Italian ancestry was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete changing my vote no one cares about this nonsense.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ancestry is not a defining characteristic for actors. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The intersection between occupation and ancestral ethnicity is not defining. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kansas City philanthropists[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:Philanthropists from the Kansas City metropolitan area. Although the more experienced voices have suggested merger or deletion, not enough have weighed in to create a consensus in that direction. I have put this category into Category:Philanthropists from Missouri, so there is no need for its member articles also to be directly within that one. Perhaps another nomination might consider a split between that one and Philanthropists from Kansas City, Missouri, since Category:People from Kansas City, Missouri, by occupation has a more fully-developed hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not exactly defining what city a philanthropist gave money to. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! From what I understand was the intent behind this page, it was to create a list of philanthropists who are in/from the Kansas City area. Would it be helpful if the list was renamed to be more specific? Thanks KCLibrarian 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kclibrarian (talk • contribs)
  • Keep JonathanKemper Initial recommendation from Lettler for deletion requested further definition on geographical scope of this category, which is a helpful suggestion, probably more appropriate for the Talk page rather than a nomination for deletion. The clarification could be that this topic is not related to a political subdivision, such as a municipality or state, but rather a metropolitan region, in this case "Greater" Kansas City, which amounts to more than 2 million citizens, spans a state line, five counties and literally dozens of municipalities. It might be worth considering a link to the Kansas City SMSA, but this doesn't seem necessary to me.

I would strongly advocate against lumping metropolitan regions inside of their state (or any other political subdivision), as Marcocapelle has suggested. In the case of Kansas City, while it is the largest municipality in Missouri, approximately half of the population resides in Kansas, separated for the greater part only by an arbitrary state line which traverses neighborhoods and in a few cases, buildings. I'm not clear on the factual basis of the comment "There are not so many philantropists [sic] that we need to split by city." It would seem that the essential spirit of Wikipedia should be to encourage the organization and presentation more facts and knowledge rather than dismiss the development of a topic which promises to provide more facts and deeper understanding, especially on a topic related to articles about people who have directed their lives to the betterment of their communities.

In this regard, I would submit one of the greatest concerns that Wikipedians should have is the possibility of cultural and racial bias in the creation and development of articles. The development of categories based on metropolitan regions might have potential to identify articles where these biases are in play systematically, and perhaps also reveal where new articles could be developed to address (unintentional) omissions of subjects which otherwise would go unnoticed in their absence. In the case of philanthropists -- people who have worked and given for the betterment of their community -- the current relative low number of individuals of color in the category might reflect multiple factors, but it would be wonderful if Wikipedians could be encouraged to identify the gaps where relevant facts can be researched, organized and presented, and develop strong articles which address these, and that the community of Wikipedia editors could be enlarged to include people who otherwise might not be represented.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanKemper (talk • contribs)


  • Keep Based on the discussion here, it seems like there is enough defense to keep the category. There is a concept, place-based philanthropy, that seems to support keeping it as well. Philanthropists in Kansas City as a metropolitan region have had a transformative impact. KCLibrarian 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Correction, we also have Category:Philanthropists from Dedham, Massachusetts. I would definitely favor merging that one. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is because Dedham is the most important city in the universe, and the most important society in the world is the one to prevent horse thevery in that city. Yes I am making fun of the city and the deluded editor who in a fit of Dedhammania has created something like 7 seperate articles on the history of Dedham and lots of other things that show that Wikipedia needs to place way better controls to stop people from trying to bend it to their own peculiarities. Wikipedia benefits from the contribution of those who have autism, I as such a person will admit that, but sometimes we let those on the autism spectrum go way too far in advancing their own peculiar specialized interests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize by legally defined entitites, not by vague and multi-defined metropolitian regions. So this should be called Kansas City, Missouri philanthropists to clearly link it to a specific legally defined geographical area, that even though it changes over time can be defined at any given time, but I do not think the intersection of city of resident and being a philanthropist is defining enough to justify such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wives of Moses[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 - jc37 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, also my understanding is that it is debatable whether Moses even had a second wife. The third article in the category is actually an article on the Jordeans painting Moses and his Ethiopian wife Zipporah--Prisencolin (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, even if someone were to create "Moses' Cushite wife". As I understand it, mainstream theological thinking is that there was only one wife. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another ill-judged, unnecessary and jumbled category. The three articles are already interlinked and family categories for semi-historical figures inevitably become confused because of different literary traditions, poor to non-existent record keeping and conflated and/or mutually-contradictory ancient sources. DrKay (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Moses. All the contents here are clearly linked around that topic, but we do not need a seperate category for 3 articles. Especially since one is a painting done thousands of years after Moses lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the National Order of Honour and Merit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD)
When prominent leaders visited Haiti, or vice versa, the National Order of Honour and Merit was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. President Bill Clinton, CNN Anchor Anderson Cooper and President Tsai Ing-wen are not remotely defined by this award. (The article indicates this award could technically be awarded to Haitians but there are no domestic recipients in any of these categories.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD) and, for the parent category, WP:C2F
The Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art is an award from the German state of Bavaria for prominent scientists and artists (broadly defined to include musicians, actors, etc.) who are already very prominent before receiving this award. There's almost 500 articles in the category so I only clicked on 50 of them and 49 didn't mention the award at all while just 1 article mentioned it in passing, so it's not treated as remotely defining unless there was sampling error on my part. There is already a separate list article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike some others, this order does seem to be used to honour those who have actually achieved something. Many people are already prominent before receiving awards (e.g. British knighthoods). That doesn't make them non-defining. This seems to be part of a campaign (mostly by the same editors) to get rid of all categorisation by awards, which is clearly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_22&oldid=1019864265"