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: Rename to match recently renamed article. – FayenaticLondon 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This seems to be about an Albanian honour. As a national award, it does not necessarily fail WP:OC#AWARD, but where these are awarded to foreigners, they often relate to people who get many honours, and contribute greatly to category cliutter. In sampling articles, I found two Albanians (who deserve to have the category), but also two Americans (one with about 10 lines of categories, mostly awards), a British academic serving in numerous international roles and will a long list on honours. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if Kept The category should match the main article. No opinion on the underlying notability of the award. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to reflect the article's name. "Scanderbeg" orders and awards have been issued during three distinct periods: pre-WWII, Communist era, post-1990. --Mondiad (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to reflect article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (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:People associated with the Hague Peace Conferences[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:rename per WP:OCASSOC and remove non-participants from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does the proposal mean that those involved in the Hague Secret Emissary Affair would be removed from the category? Those involved did not participate in the conferences. Also, what about Nicholas II of Russia? He did not participate directly in the conferences as far as I know, but he proposed that they be held and was fairly instrumental in making the first one happen. The conferences could probably be said to be one of the highlights of his reign. The same might be said (to a lesser degree) about Theodore Roosevelt and the second conference. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People of the Hague Secret Emissary Affair can have their own category, as a sibling of this one. (That would actually imply a category split instead of a rename). Nicholas II and Theodore Roosevelt should be mentioned in the respective articles, they do not have a strong enough connection with the participants of the conference to be in one category with them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nicholas has a strong enough connection to the conference to be somehow categorized with it, however—possibly just in Category:Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (perhaps not for Roosevelt). I'm not sure of a separate category for the Hague Secret Emissary Affair people, though—it would be quite a small category. If the wording was changed to something like Category:Delegates to the Hague Peace Conference, then it could include them, since they were designated as delegates to it, they just weren't accepted once they arrived. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Category With no objection to creating the more narrow/non-subjective categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2016 (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: rename because this category is not about religious law (law of religions) but instead it is about legislation concerning religion. This is a follow-up on this discussion in which the United States category was renamed similarly. Simultaneously I'm proposing an upmerge of smallest country categories and a removal of "by country" in the name of the top category. Participants to the discussion may either vote for rename + upmerge, rename without upmerge, upmerge without rename or keep. Note that the Canadian category stands apart because it only contains case law, not legislation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. The scope seems to be much clearer. Dimadick (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) The alternative rename is also fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2016 (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.
Delete per nom. I note that the only member of the category is not specifically "a war crime" and should be removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-defining characteristic of the article(s) of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only member of the category is not in itself a war crime, even if some war crimes occurred in it. (War crimes occur in many wars, maybe even most, but that doesn't mean that the article on the war itself belongs in a war crime category.) SJK (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2016 (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.
Delete. I wondered about this category, so I checked, it is the only category that starts "People who refused..." No people who refused Knighthoods, Conscription or even Academy Awards. There are probably several reasons why this type of category don't exist, one is the reason for refusal which would vary from person to person, so there would not be a unifying reason to have such a category. I am sure other editors will let us know of other reasons. Apologies for WP:BEANS --Richhoncho (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify before deleting. In accordance with WP:OC#AWARD we discourage categories for award recipients. The same consideration should apply to those who refused. A common outcome is to listify. This would provide a means of noting their stated reasons for refusing. If not reason has been published, it may be questionable, whether the award was offered. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article, Padma Bhushan, this is the third highest civilian award in India. Refusing that doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people have refused the award for too many different reasons (and one of whom didn't refuse but sent it back later). There is no commonality between these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Peterkingiron. The refusals have typically gotten enough press that collating them in some form makes sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2016 (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.
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: There is no such category at global.It is unnecessary. Upmerge. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There is a difference between a chartered accountant and an accountant. Please refer books for the same here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 10:49, 24 February 2016
Support, as for the Indian sub-cat. – FayenaticLondon 14:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need Category:Chartered accountants when we have Category:Accountants. There is no standardised process worldwide whereby someone becomes "chartered", and anyway, as Fayenatic said in the discussion above, we generally categorise by nationality and occupation, not by specific qualifying bodies. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is nothing here apart from the Indian subcat, dealt with above. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why we would want a separate category for chartered accountants as opposed to just one for all accountants? Wouldn't this be like categorizing carpenters but then having a separate category who achieve the higher-lever qualification of "master carpenters"? Anyway, I suspect that it's quite unlikely that there are that many bio articles for people who are notable as an accountant but are not chartered accountants. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are CGAs or CMAs then they are not usually also CAs. So, yes, there should be many, And ofcource criminals who don't hold qualifications but are accountants, in scamming clients, etc. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what exactly is the rationale for having separate categories? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a defining characteristic, the same as all other end-level categories. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are they defined by being accountants, or are they defined by being accountants who are chartered by a particular entity? I would say the former, in almost all cases. This is the case especially since the process and requirements for being chartered differs widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—there is no unifying qualification uniting these across all places. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate -- In UK (and I suspect other Commonwealth countries), a chartered accountant is a higher qualification, than other accountancy professions. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone knows that and it is not in dispute: the question is—why do we want a separate categorization scheme? Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meaningfully distinguishing, like having all sorts of categories for doctors and lawyers based on their certifications and licensing credentials would also be trivial. Just a quick perusal of how we could break down Category:California lawyers by their own bar association's designations see [1]. Seems more an advertisement than actually conveying something defining, because I don't see any prohibition to be a specialist in everything. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't fail SMALLCAT, I don't see why we wouldn't classify lawyers by the jurisdictions they are accredited to practice in, since they are defining characteristics for lawyers. Practicing jurisdiction is different from citizenship and place of birth, two things which we do categorize under, but which does not mean that the lawyer themselves can actually practice there -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to keep per WP:DEFINING. For reference, I scrolled through the Scottish accountants category (picked a country randomly), and quite a number of accountants seem to be defined by being a chartered accountant. So as it's not just a one-country issue I think there is a case for this tree. These accountants are not defined by having received their charter from any particular institute, but does that really matter? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a category for accountants is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2016 (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 result of the discussion was:delete. In both cases, categories remain for films directed by these individuals. However, this deletion makes the parent "Works by" categories unnecessary and pointless for navigation, so I will speedily delete these under WP:G6. – FayenaticLondon 12:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most film producers don't get significant notice. This is the beginning of a lot of deletion nominations, beginning with very sparsely populated examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would be helpful to nominate multiple categories simultaneously if they have the same rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged these two discussions. – FayenaticLondon 14:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJeta Amata is a Nigerian director who seems to produce his own films. Sarah Begum is an English anthropologist and journalist by profession, who apparently has recently produced a number of documentary films. Neither one seems to be a professional film producer. I am not certain whether there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both are filmmakers who produce films so it seems reasonable for them to have this category. 86.153.74.179 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially the Jeta Amata category. The film was both directed and produced by him (there is only one entry) so this is a case of duplicate categorization.03:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose categories for film producers/directors films seem to be in common usage. 31.49.133.154 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dimadick's sound analysis. While I don't disagree with having this genre of categories, there is no point in having these specific categories for occasional/non-professional producers and with only a single title listed. They do not help readers nor help navigation. Cavarrone 19:08, 19 April 2016 (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:Transport disasters related to the European migrant crisis[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; I'll move the contents to appropriate categories, as discussed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "related to" should not be used in category names as it is inherently subjective (although this particular case isn't as bad as some). Apart from the subcat referred to in the nom (which might need to be upmerged) the category currently contains just 2 lists of incidents (which should not be in a disasters category). DexDor(talk) 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially an empty subcategory of Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea, which include the "Transport disasters related to the European migrant crisis" (all shipwrecks since 2015). The only article which is not included in Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea is List of migrant vehicle incidents in Europe, but after the August 2015 incidents, no other transport incidents took place on land. Nykterinos (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle. The article about vehicles needs to be recategorised. It lists three incidents, one where the clandestines suffocated and two where they were injured in accidents. However the vast majority of the trouble is maritime. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (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.
