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, without prejudice to a broader nominating to rename all of the subcategories to the non-hyphenated version. Or, users could try to get the article changed back.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring it in line with all its sub-categories Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Non-profit" looks better to me, perhaps following UK usage. However, perhaps the hyphenated categories should be renamed instead; the main page Non-profit organization was moved to Nonprofit organization in 2011 per an uncontested WP:RM request. The current category name is from a C2D speedy move in Jan 2015,[1] nominated by Mangoe (talk·contribs). – FayenaticLondon 12:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I am uneasy about the concept of a non-profit executive: I would prefer Category:Executives of non-profit organizations. Unless they are volunteers, they will be getting a salary, so that the executives are getting a profit from their employment. However this will require a follow-up nom for related categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 25 June 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.
I don't think it's necessary to rename to "Anglicans and Episcopalians" as there isn't any doubt that Episcopalians are Anglicans. Similarly, it's not called the Anglican and Episcopalian Communion. Graham (talk) 18:07, 17 June 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:Hey Look! It's That Mad Wrestling Thing Aff The Telly Tour[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 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:merge per proposal 1. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:NARROWCATs that will never be sufficiently populated. PanchoS (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested — I created these and do not really agree that they "will never be sufficiently populated", but I don't oppose the suggested merger as it simplifies the overall category structure. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, too many 1-article sized categories here. Prefer proposal 1, per current status of categorization, without prejudice to expanding to proposal 2 as soon as enough wholesalers are getting categorized in each year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 1 possibly with a wider upmerge to a category for wholesalers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 25 June 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:Siblings of Presidents of the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The US has no formal title or informal cultural role for brothers and sisters of Presidents like we do for First Ladies. Now many of these people are defined by being a relative of some sort with the President which is why all 50 articles are also under their specific family category in the Category:First Families of the United States tree. For instance, Billy Carter is under Category:Carter family. But, I don't think Billy Carter would have been any more or less of a national embarrassment if he was an uncle or a first cousin instead of a brother so double categorizing him as a sibling of some president isn't defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a general statement based on how there are many people who are/were siblings of Presidents, but it wasn't exactly what they were known for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl and SNUGGUMS: I would say being a deadbeat, drunk, possibly treasonous relative of Jimmy Carter was Billy's defining characteristic and that's covered with Category:Carter family. Having this second presidential category for ol' Billy lumps him in with Teddy Roosevelt's quite respectable sisters.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: that sounds like the basis of a case for Category:Publicity-seeking, drunk, deadbeat relatives of US Presidents. <grin> I take your point that there may not be a need for this category, but en.wp should remain neutral on the perceived relative merits of Billy Carter vs the Roosevelt Sisters. The issue is whether the shared attribute is defining, not whether we think the various members of the category are of similar moral standing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, maybe I'm letting my love for Bamie Roosevelt get the best of me! I'm fine with presidential spouses and kids since they are often living in the White House which defines them in distinct ways, but presidential genealogy gets so extensive that I would favor stopping there. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I kinda admire Billy for his shameless outrageousness! <grin> Since there are many individual relatives who are defined by their relationship to a President, I guess the real question here is which types of family relationship are likely, in most cases, to be defining. You make a good case for restricting that to spouses and sprogs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 18 June 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:Recipients of the Order of the Palmetto[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 Order of the Palmetto is a state government award of South Carolina, although it has the feel of a small town mayor's key to the city. A local magazine described it best: "Past recipients have included singer James Brown, author Pat Conroy, tap dancer Clayton 'Peg Leg' Bates, Civil Rights activist Septima Clark, and many others including past governors." (source). That news story was about the governor giving the award to the owners of a Lexus dealership, which is apparently something that happens in South Carolina. At least 3,500 people have received the award, but it's impossible to verify all recipients because there is no complete list (source). - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background We recently deleted the equivalent Kentucky and North Carolina award recipients here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumably awardees have done something (perhaps notably, by Wikipedia standards) to have earned the award; that is likely what defines them, not receiving this award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 22 June 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.
Keep, this is no less defining than any other hall of fame inductee category. Many people are inducted into halls of fame posthumously (example Lord Stanley died in 1908, whilst the hall of fame was established in 1943). This sort of recognition is generally only a line item in an article, although some expansion within the articles could be done (For example, so and so was inducted into the mining hall of fame for their contributions to this thing).--kelapstick(bainuu) 01:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (WP:NON-DEFINING). As with most/all halls of fame a list is much better (e.g. as it can contain redlinks) and we don't need both a list and a category. DexDor(talk) 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list is preferred in the case of an award that might be noteworthy but falls short of WP:DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 20 June 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.
