Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 2

File:Squirrel Plush Toy.jpg – Close is endorsed as having correctly followed procedure at FFD and applied policies on copyright correctly. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This image was nominated for discussion by someone who thinks the subject in it (a stuffed toy) is copyrighted. The admin who closed the discussion took things too quickly and deleted the image before a consensus could be reached. However, there is something I noticed in the nominator's rationale. Yes, the nominator believed the toy is copyrighted, but did not specify things like character or maker. It's like the nominator would regard any toy as copyrighted regardless how it's made. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. Commons policies are not Wikipedia policies. Things we would delete are kept there, and things we would keep are deleted there. The "delete" side needs to make their case in Wikipedia policy, and it hasn't yet done so.—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - The only proponent of deletion was the nominator, User:Whpq, and the only proponent of keeping is the appellant. That isn't much participation and is not a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The image was said to breach copyright, and it isn't necessary to cite WP:COPYRIGHT to give that claim validity, it's necessary to explain why it breaches copyright. The delete argument was that the image was uploaded with a free license when it should not have been, due to copyright law. The closer found consensus to delete after discounting the comments forming the line of arguments of the keep side regarding copyright, i.e. copyrightability of toys and how de minimis being applied to a scene containing toys applies to an image of a single toy as well (obviously wrong and also an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF). When the argument of the opposition was discounted the only thing that was left was support for deletion, and the closer was right, or at least very reasonable, to consider the support arguments as correct on policy. Alalch E. 21:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But unlike Commons, we allow photographs of copyrighted works. We have {{Non-free 2D art}} and {{Non-free 3D art}} specifically for this purpose.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FFD is an excellent place to sort out whether an image wrongly tagged as a free image perhaps could have been and should be tagged with some non-free use rationale, yet after a normal period of discussion nothing was sorted out except for the fact that there was a copyright problem. This logically led to deletion. —Alalch E. 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FFD didn't think about fair use rationales. We can correct that at DRV though; we aren't constrained by the poorly attended discussion in the venue below.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A use rationale must be offered on one's own accord. If we instructed the applicant to provide an alternative use rationale it would resemble begging the question as we would to our outcome impart our individual beliefs about the likelihood of there being a certain appropriate use rationale, which we can only speculate about, and I believe that we should keep ourselves distanced, which is more in the spirit of a review process. Offerer of use rationale needs to offer one without any outside influence. —Alalch E. 10:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, really? Why is that?—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the person who uploads a file knows the truth of where the file came from, and the circumstances that affect copyright, and we don't. FFD is a dialectical process of reaching a satisfactory level of assuredness that the use rationale really applies, it isn't about crafting the most fitting words that make it look like one applies. A healthy dose of skepsis is needed, and telling the uploader "well if your file for deleted for this reason, try some other rationale -- like this one" is not that. —Alalch E. 11:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I reject that utterly. The idea that DRV isn't allowed to help the applicant absolutely will not fly. The point of this and any other discussion is to make the encyclopaedia better, and we do need fair use images—particularly in cases like this where free content maximalists are saying US copyright law won't let us photograph a toy, for goodness sake. You'd expect any decent encyclopaedia that covers toys would have pictures of them.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article where this was added doesn't seem to have a shortage of pictures of toys, no text was added with the picture and no assertion that this picture has any particularity about it, so your fears that it'd make us less of an encylopedia by not having pictures of soft toys seem to be unfounded. I also don't think anyone has said you (or anyone else) isn't allowed to help the applicant here, and indeed some have mentioned non-free content, though I don't think anyone is obliged to do so, and if meeting such criteria seems unlikely I can understand why anyone would be reluctant --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how else I would interpret Offerer of use rationale needs to offer one without any outside influence except as a claim that we shouldn't help. How would you understand that? I don't think the NFCC are hard to meet for a toy, because it is apparently impossible to take a photo of a toy that isn't copyrighted. One image for each brand or variety that has an article would surely pass NFCCs #1-7 and #9, and could be made to pass #10. NFCC#8 is so vague that our decisions about it are hard to predict but I would argue that it shouldn't be hard to pass that in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the discussion was about what happened at FFD not about what should or shouldn't happen at DRV, and I would take it as that editors personal take, I understand the thinking we aren't trying to shoehorn stuff in which doesn't fit, but given that the same editor hasn't been jumping on those who have mentioned non-free here I would assume they aren't saying it's totally impermissible. If you think NFCC are going to be easy to meet for a toy, then great, but you can't dictate that others must see it likewise and therefore are required to attempt to do such. At times I see far more disservice done to individuals in the name of helping them when it's basically it just delays the inevitable and potentially just makes them even more frustrated with the process/policies involved. Given the article already has multiple pictures I can't see how it would pass the non-replaceable element absent some particularly defining feature, I haven't checked the other images but if your assessment is correct that they must all be under fair-use then we'd just be picking to use this one over any of the others, so again I wouldn't see the point in doing so unless there is something particular... --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see that, but the fact that this image isn't needed in stuffed toy doesn't mean that it isn't needed anywhere in the whole encyclopaedia. There were reasonable alternatives to deletion!—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the project is focused on free content enabling reuse which is limited in many countries (no fair dealing permitted) I can't imagine the foundation would permit us retaining non-free images on the off chance that in the future we might be able to use such an image. I certainly don't think commenters in the FFD could be responsible for trying to hunt down other places where a non-free image might be appropriate, if they don't what are we going to do, keep the non-free image anyway - I really don't see the foundation standing by on that. Regardless I think it would pretty difficult to find such where the image meets that adding significantly to understanding and not-replaceable with a few image requirements. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what article are you saying the image would be needed and meet NFCC, S Marshall (talk · contribs)? We can't keep fair use images around just because someone might use them somehow some day. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how I can answer that without being able to see it. Presumably it would be useful in an article about the manufacturer.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red White Blue and Yellow: Please advise the editor who closed the discussion that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at WP:DRV. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Red White Blue and Yellow: has this been completed? Daniel (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Red White Blue and Yellow still hasn't posted a notice at JJMC89's talk page. Their input to this discussion is important. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red White Blue and Yellow also did not complete step 4 either. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (I nominated the file for deletion). Although Enwiki and Commons do have different policies, and files that do not qualify for Commons may qualify for use here, this image is not one of those cases. There was no argument put forth to use it as non-free content. It's usage in the stuffed toy article would not not have met WP:NFC#1 as there are freely licensed images available and in use in the article. The link to a commons page was useful for providing information about copyright of toys, and not an application of Commons policy. United States copyright law applies both for images here and on Commons, and the page from Commons provides direct information about toys and copyright under US law. Contrast this with the more general guidance we have for derivative work which is what this photograph is. The closer correctly weighed the arguments of our policy to follow US copyright law. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image is a derivative work since I did not alter the image or the toy itself.

Another thing. If you think the toy is copyrighted, what is it really? You sound like you would call any stuffed toy copyrighted. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was a derivative work of the toy. If I create a copyrighted painting and then you take a photograph of it, then my copyright still applies to your photograph. If you take a photograph of a copyrighted toy then the toy copyright still applies to the photograph. And yes, almost all stuffed toy designs will be copyrighted, unless they are old enough to be in the public domain. Hut 8.5 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does copyright apply to a recreationally made toy? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the maker of the toy (as distinct from the taker of the photograph) could grant a free licence on it. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does Commons go by different rules than Wikipedia which is why images of plushes in Commons don't seem to get nominated for deletion? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commons only accepts free images, so either the images have been determined to be free or the images haven't been noticed as non-free and will deleted at some point. The detail on toys being subject to copyright was part of the commons guidelines. One correction on the point above about recreationally made toys, If I make a toy from scratch to my own design I could release it under a free license, if on the other hand I use a pattern or kit where someone else has designed it, there is a good chance the copyright would at least in part rest with the designer/manufacturer. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a toy is recreationally made, it usually isn't copyrighted unless the maker applies for a copyright at some office. One exception, however, is a toy modeled after a copyrighted character, 104.172.112.209 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that is totally incorrect. As I not elsewhere under the Berne Convention "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic;" -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse FFDs often don't get much participation and are often closed with fewer participants than would be acceptable at other deletion venues. The discussion was not closed early. The Keep comments made in the discussion focused on the existence of other images of toys, which isn't particularly relevant (different images are, well, different). Nor do I see anything here which would change the outcome. The fact the nomination didn't specify the toy manufacturer is irrelevant - copyright exists automatically unless explicitly disclaimed, which is extremely unlikely for a commercially produced toy, and even if the manufacturer has somehow released the copyright then the onus would be on the uploader to show that. While this isn't Commons, the Commons page linked in the nomination merely explains US copyright law, which the English Wikipedia is required to follow. There wasn't any claim of fair use and the image's use would not have been compatible with WP:NFCC. Hut 8.5 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus reached was correct, process was properly followed. I have consulted the image and agree it is necessarily copyrighted. Relisting would be process for process' sake. If someone wants to propose to use the image under fair use, which would be a high bar, they should say so and attach a draft rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse under the Berne convention copyright is automatically granted on creation of the "work", there is no specific method of production etc. required. I have more sympathy for this sort of thing than many cases which crop up (though I can't see the picture) the rough form of toys is often dictated by the subject and different people/companies producing similar toys based on that underlying form makes it a harder pill to swallow. On the other hand we have various pictures which illustrate the article, so forgoing this one based on the information we have so far doesn't seem to be a particular detriment to the encyclopedia. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, this is a place where Wikipedia does crazy things. But yes, such a picture could, in theory, be a copyright violation when put on Wikipedia. IMO (and IANAL) any attempt to sue Wikipedia for using such an image would be laughed out of court--it would be clearly fair use and cause no harm to the copyright owner. But Wikipedia has chosen to be conservative on the issue to the point of being ludicrous (as is the case here) and so deletion is probably appropriate as it doesn't meet our internal rules for fair use. Endorse is far too strong of a word as I think deletion is dumb here. But the deletion is in line with our (dumb) policies. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, the image was nominated at FFD by someone who thinks the toy is copyrighted but does not know the toy really. This shows the nominator would call any toy copyrighted, even something made by an ordinary individual who only makes toys as a hobby. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And as I understand it, that's correct. The issue is that a picture of such a copyrighted thing, in a context like Wikipedia would be fair use. But our rules for fair use claims don't allow us to claim fair use here. Which, as I said, I think is a dumb outcome. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment Alalch E. explained the outcome very well. While c:COM:TOYS is part of a Commons guideline, it is an explanation of why such a photo is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users like the nominator and closer like to talk about copyright and policy. However, they don't explicitly explain why the subject of the photo is copyrighted and not free-licensed. They would cite a page of rules, but their explanations don't not involve any description of the toy. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As copyright is automatically granted at point of creation, a copyright will exist there is no question about that. The question would be has the holder released it for free use, the nominator and closer can't prove a negative, i.e. that such a release definitely doesn't exist. The person wishing to use it should however be able to prove the positive much more easily, i.e. show the release from the holder. As a free content project the question of copyright is one taken seriously (some would argue too seriously, but the wikimedia foundation set tight boundaries here) so the default assumption is going to be that we can't use something unless we can specifically show different. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion – No action taken. It is unclear whether the 2021 CfD closure, or the speedy deletion pursuant to it, are contested. The nominator has sidetracked the thread into a discussion of the merits of the category, and about geographical bias and consistency in the CfD process, which are all out of scope for DRV. To the limited extent people talk about what matters here - whether the CfD was properly closed or the category properly deleted - nobody apart from the nominator suggests any impropriety. There is therefore no consensus here to overturn any administrative action. Sandstein 09:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The discussion took place 2 years ago. My category was deleted yesterday by @DrKay, However, significant new information has come to light. However, even back then, the discussion was factually incorrect. For example, other countries enjoy have 8 different orders of merits (with even less significance for their recipient, e.g., Legion of Honour (Grand Master) and Category:Collars of the Order of the White Lion not to mention Category:Recipients of the Order of Cultural Merit (Romania) which does not have a main page at all!) but for some reason, the consensus on National Order of the Lion was to consider it redundant!

Beyond that

@RevelationDirect argued no article and did not define awardee. Now, there is an article, and for half of the 85 removed awardees, it does define them as similar to any other orders of merits (e.g., Torild Skard, Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye, Germaine Acogny, Didier Raoult, Mbaye Diagne, Esther Kamatari, Ndioro Ndiaye, Jean Miot and Aminata Sow Fall) plus why you think a European order of merit defines Queen Elizabeth more than an African one?

@Marcocapelle and @Just N. agreed without providing more information but repeating the WP:OCAWARD, which is not correct as per the examples I have mentioned

Another reason was that when heads of state and other officials visit Senegal or vice versa, the National Order of the Lion is given out as souvenirs = which is factually wrong. Only correct for the rank of the grand cross and again, why Category:Knights Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, a European order of merit, defines Queen Elizabeth more than an African one?

By thinking in this way, you are inadvertently entrenching the whole Geographical bias on Wikipedia. Robbing people of this honour, diminishes their notability, and increaseing the fights about what defines notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following categories, since they follow the same logic, after the catgeory I will add the XfD link and people (WP) who are affected by this

Category:Recipients of Order of the Queen of Sheba XfD (the deletion claims: (The only Ethiopians in this category are members of the royal family who are already well categorized under Category:Ethiopian Royal Family) , see: Norodom Monineath, Ibrahim Oweiss, François Duvalier, Margaret Kenyatta (mayor)

Category:Recipients of Order of the Star of Ethiopia XfD (the list mayb enough but why not both similar to Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and List of members of the Order of Merit) people who are affected: Mansour Ali Haseeb, George Merzbach, George C. Thorpe, Paul Scully-Power

Category:Recipients of Order of Solomon (XfD reason: given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit and to other monarch), which is true but then either also omit Category:Knights of St Patrick or be consistent

Category:Recipients of Order of Menelik II XfD similar reasons) = not entirely correct per: Jean Leclant, Ernest W Price and Abebe Bikila

PS: am still struggling to understand how you can accept e.g., Category:Commandeurs of the Légion d'honneur as a defining to Kenneth Anderson (British Army officer) and not Category:Recipients of Order of the Star of Ethiopia FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: The same day this award was nominated, a German award was also nominated and deleted. The consensus in CFD has deleted dozens of other diplomatic award categories from around the world. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is still a lot of work to do to get WP:OCAWARD implemented, as OP correctly observes. That is not a reason to revert part of its implementation process though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just asking to be consistent. If your policy is to remove an order of merit category because it is being awarded to Diplomats/Royals (without considering the collateral damage to the notability of non diplomats which I listed some of them, e.g., Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion when was deleted contained 85, [[Category:Recipients of Order of the Queen of Sheba 37, etc) then do not start with African countries because you know you might face minimal resistance, go big and open an honest discussion to the British Empire countless order of merits especially the ones handed between royalties and let us argue how WP:OCAWARD should be consistently implemented FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Légion d'honneur is a prestigious award given for outstanding contributions, the civilian counterpart to a significant military medal. The National Order of the Lion, ah, isn't. The Senegalese have awarded it to Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-il. Its use is political or diplomatic rather than commendatory.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall well it’s not for us to speculate on if Kim Jong-il has outstanding contributions or not. Let’s not get into politics, I’m sure if dig into the “prestigious” honour I will find more skeletons than what Xi and Kim buried + people who received it as a diplomatic gesture. Beside, I just listed more than 8 peoples who are not Kim or politicians who had outstanding contributions .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm glad we agree the award isn't WP:DEFINING at least for those two.~~ I clicked through the list you provided that had more people with actual ties to Senegal. Even here though, the articles don't treat the award as defining and tend to mention the award in passing with other honours: Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye#Work and recognition, Didier Raoult#Honours and awards, and Ndioro Ndiaye#Life. (Germaine Acogny is an exception.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mate, I didn’t agree with you on anything. You are exactly perpetuating the kinda of geographical bias that am talking about. “Tend to mention the award in passing with other honours” and other honours get a category and this not!

“d'honneur is a prestigious award given for outstanding contributions” and a Senegalese award is not because it was gave to Kim and Xi. You clearly did not get my angle when I asked “how you can accept e.g., Category:Commandeurs of the Légion d'honneur as a defining to Kenneth Anderson (British Army officer) and not Category:Recipients of Order of the Star of Ethiopia” FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect . Please do not compare apples with dissolved oranges and there is 37 German order of merit, see Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany, do you know which one is equivalent to Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion? I can tell you, you cannot even touch Order of Merit of Baden-Württemberg, a region award let alone trying to touch the highest German order of merit

@S Marshall you may also want to take a look to Category:Orders of chivalry awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members since you are anti-categories that is awarded to diplomats. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect can I reply to this because it is just wrong (your word in bold): I clicked through the list you provided that had more people with actual ties to Senegal. Even here though, the articles don't treat the award as defining and tend to mention the award in passing with other honours: Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye#Work (re: tagged with a french Officers of the Order of Agricultural Merit, again how is this more defining the Senegalese one?) and recognition, Didier Raoult#Honours and awards (re:taged with Officiers of the Légion d'honneur, which is subcategory for a rank to an order that is given to more than 6,000 compared to one given to selected few), and Ndioro Ndiaye#Life. (same) FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the same day as this category was nominated, a German award category was also nominated. On the same CFD pages as the links you provided where African award categories were nominated, recipient categories for an American award, another German award, a Scouting award, and an Italian award were also nominated. All of these award categories were deleted by consensus. That's not to say there isn't regional/linguistic bias in Wikipedia though, but it appears more in the biography articles that have not yet been written (so they can't be categorized). - RevelationDirect (talk)

@FuzzyMagma: Sorry about that; I didn't mean to misrepresent your perspective so I struck that sentence. So how is this particular award WP:DEFINING to Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-il? - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect it is not, in the same spirit, how is the Order of the Liberator General San Martin is (with a category tagged to him)?

Agin, Xi and Kim are not the point, the other 83 who have the same honours are part of this point, the 8 I have listed above are. for these people it means something and defines them. For me when I am writing an article about an African and get bombarded by notability tags, it does FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the challenges of creating biography articles from under-represented regions. I don't see this category as the solution, but appreciate understanding the source of your frustration better. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Please advise the editor who deleted the category, on their user talk page, that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at WP:DRV. (Note that pinging an editor may not notify the person, as some people have pings turned off.) Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also placed a neutral notice at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect thanks for that FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not done. I am not the deleting admin. The deleting admins are those who closed the original deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzyMagma did not complete step 4 either. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as original CFD nominator) I share FuzzyMagma's frustration about the number of non-defining award categories that still remain despite WP:OCAWARD. The response to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be more CFD nominations though, not reversing an old decision that followed the process. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see just how much category clutter these award categories create, just take a look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just be consistent. Either all awards be treated the same and each country to be reduced to one category or enjoy “the train wreck” while being fair. You don’t get to pick and choose based on what you perceive as prestigious or defining FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or (and that will be my honest opinion), Royals should not be tagged with any Order of merits categories as they receive many for just being one, instead a list should be created for their honours, e.g. List of titles and honours of XXX (List of titles and honours of Haile Selassie), and tagged with the a category called Category:Royals list of titles and honours. But at the end these meaningless order of merits to Royals defines people notability as stated in WP policy and a mere MBE or can change your life but that is not limited to the UK, it applies even to Senegal and Ethiopia .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we're on different sides of this DRV, we both are looking at the same problem of award overcategorization. If there is a consensus for it at CFD, I'm totally open to rewording WP:OCAWARD to make it tighter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until we fix the system, let's treat Africans merit orders the same way we treat other awards, e.g., Order of the Liberator General San Martin, Category:Orders of chivalry awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and other examples I mentioned here and there. We do not want speculation about prestige and mention in passing to be the WP:OCAWARD that for some reason delete a country highest order of merit .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is not the forum to rewrite editing guidelines. We can't covertly create an alternate version of WP:OCAWARD here without WikiProject Categories and then start implementing that in the namespace against consensus. This nomination is not so much about the specific issue of how the admin closed this particular nomination, but the broader issue of how award categories are used overall. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect apologies I have fixed a typo that may alter your response. Replaced ‘by’ with be FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working toward clarity. My perspective remains that this is the wrong forum but I hope other editors weigh in with their perspectives. -RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who have been working on under represented people in Africa. I share the perspective of FuzzyMagma. What affects one should also affects all. He has actually provided all the necessary requirements, instances and illustrations that also apply to most of these European award categories. Either the categories are allowed or deleted there should not be selective deletion. It can be equated to Geographical prejudice.

@RevelationDirect:
@DrKay and DrKay:
@Marcocapelle: Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me again but there is nothing I can add on top of what I wrote earlier. This sort of categories should be deleted and it is a pity that it hasn't happened yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The vast majority of award recipient categories should be deleted as non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment The discussion couldn't really have been closed any other way. I don't see any valid reason to overturn the close. See Marcocapelle's 21:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC) comment. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that the nominator isn't directly contesting the CfD closure, but the G4 speedy deletion. The focus of this DRV should probably be whether to endorse the speedy or overturn for a new CfD, rather than whether the 2021 CfD was properly closed. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC), 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 January 2023[edit]