Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29

Category:Bishops of Albany

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: administrative close: was speedily renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needs to be more specific, because while this category seems to refer to the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, it could also apply to the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. The heads of both diocese hold the title "Bishop of Albany", even though they are different denominations. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident in Scotland

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: Keep Wknight94 talk 13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a particularly small category, and could grow. PatGallacher (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In most cases cause of death is not particular notable. Such categories generally lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with 6 entries at the time of this edit, I wouldn't say this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. Granted horses aren't a common mode of transportation, but there still might be area for growth among historical biographies. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 6 entries doesn't fail WP:SMALLCAT.
Also, please note that if the category is merged, it should be merged to both parents. @Lettler's proposal would remove these articles from Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident, which would be wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge for now as it is currently the only subcategory by country and the parent is not exceptionally large. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 6 entries doesn't fail WP:SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- 6 is quite enough for a category. I might have suggested a merge to a UK category, but that would be anachronistic as most of the entries are medieval when Scotland was independent. Some of these deaths were politically highly significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Critical social justice

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 Wknight94 talk 13:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The definition of "critical social justice" is thinly-sourced and disputed, and is not a suitable topic for categorization. As discussed extensively at Talk:Critical social justice, the phrase is not in common use among reliable sources, and search results are generally tied to a single cultural critic/polemicist's self-published opinions. That James A. Lindsay thinks something is "critical social justice" (and to be clear, he admittedly invented the use of this phrase as an intended pejorative to apply to things he personally opposes) is not sufficient justification for creating a category for those things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per C2F, main article Critical social justice is the only remaining content. Given your remark, should that article go to AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category creator added other articles to the category, but I removed them all because none of them were sourced as being "critical social justice" - to be fair, that would probably be construed as emptying it shortly before nomination, so speedying for empty is probably not available. The article unfortunately survived an earlier attempt at an AfD, but is basically a perma-stub because there are no other reliable sources about the topic at this point. Usage of the phrase is limited to two academics and one book, and a polemicist/cultural critic's attempts at rebranding "social justice" in a negative frame. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of roads in South Africa

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) 02:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles in this category are lists. The subcategories should be renamed as well and can be speedied pending the outcome of this discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: Deletion also may be warranted due to the articles in this category already being in an established scheme under Category:Roads in South Africa; e.g., R101 (South Africa) is categorized under Category:Regional Routes in the Western Cape, a grandchild category of Roads in South Africa. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revising nomination to delete this category and its subcategories due to 1) none of the articles within them are actual lists and 2) this categorization is redundant to and doesn't improve upon the current categorization scheme for these articles under Category:Roads in South Africa. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are roads, not lists, and already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the articles in this category are lists. --Just N. (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German deck card games

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: dual upmerge, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: WP:OVERCAT, These were created by @Ish ishwar: so that a reader with a particular deck type might want to know what games are played with it. However, he hasn’t followed it through by creating categories for e.g. French, German, Spanish and Italian decks, and. in any case, there are easier ways of achieving his aim. Firstly, the majority of articles have a navbox showing which games are played with which cards. Secondly, you can just use Wikipedia’s advanced search option and type in e.g. “French deck card games” and “Banking games”.
To go down this route would mean creating a whole raft of WP:NARROWCATs intersecting ‘type of deck' with ‘type of game', some of which would be virtually empty. It would also be problematic because many games are traditionally played with more than one type of pack. My sense is that this WP:OVERCAT, these categories should be deleted and the articles returned to the parent category to join the rest of the games of the same type. Bermicourt (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the parent, merge the others up into both it and their game-type categories (e.g., Category:Point-trick games). Just because other deck-specific categories don't exist is no reason to delete this one. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sorry, I wasn't proposing deletion of the parent... I've struck that out. Bermicourt (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per Grutness. @Bermicourt: please be precise in your nomination, do not mention "delete" when you mean "merge to Category:German deck card games". Also, you still need to tag the category pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Roger. I don't do this very often. I've tagged the category pages. Bermicourt (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Right, so I just thought that this is the simplest way to easily find the information. The advanced search might be possible when the individual games have all desired information. (I think currently it was lacking some information? But, that has no bearing the appropriateness of these categories. It just means a little more editing is required.) However, personally, i find doing advanced search requires a lot of clicking. (In contrast, category pages present all related articles on a single page and one easily sees the tree structure of the categorization.) I personally use categories on wikipedia quite a bit to discover related things. But, this is just my preference, after all. The correct question would be whether the categories are useful to the average casual reader. (Related question: are all readers aware that the advanced search can be used this way?) If it's not useful, then deletion seems appropriate. I don't see the categorization as 'problematic.' Basically, such a narrow classification actually has overlapping labels. Having labeling for the subclassification appears messy, i guess, because it actually is complex. Thus, it's only 'problematic' if one dislikes a complex presentation. I suppose this is a matter of taste. I (and, presumably others?) don't have a problem showing complex relations but perhaps Bermicourt (and, presumably others?) has a preference to not present such a state of affairs. Not labeling the subclassifications, of course, doesn't change the complexity, it merely hides it and leaves it to the reader to compute. Well, I can't say which perspective is better. So, I'll leave it to others to decide. (And, practically speaking, since Bermicourt seems to be one of primary editors of card-related information, perhaps their preference should carry some added weight in the equation as they will likely be left to maintain the categorization in the future?) The comment 'However, he hasn’t followed it through...' seems to be only tangentially connected as a practical matter: unfinished categorization is unattractive. But, i think one should decide whether the subcategorizations should exist based on its own merits rather than its state of completeness. If it has merit, then it should be completed. If not, then deleted. I haven't been on wikipedia much to complete it or reply to Bermicourt – i'm sorry about that, just have had more work to do with the covid situation (basically homeschooling little kids). Well, those are my thoughts – maybe they are bad ideas! Anyway, i'll respect whatever you folks think is best. – ishwar  (speak) 20:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adoptees adopted by relations

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: manually merge as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by a non-defining / trivial characteristic. I am not sure if Category:Adoptees is defining either, but I am comfortable merging this category for now. User:Namiba 14:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Family friendly comedy

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) 02:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Orphan category with one entry, where it is badly sourced. Not really our business to indicate whether something is "family-friendly" or not. Fram (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User:Fram why it is not our buisness?? If we can mention a youtube channel is comedy related or vlogs related, then why can't we mention that it is family friendly comedy or adult comedy Jogesh 69 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources indicating it as such, it is not up to us to add such labels. Even then, we would need to see if it is a common enough indicator to warrant a separate category, and then we would need to give it a correct name (like "family-friendly comedy youTube channels" or so), and we would need to find a place for it in the category tree. The last two of these issues are editable, but the first two are reasons for deletion if they can't be solved. Fram (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – vague category with unclear scope, which is impossible to define in a consistent and globally relevant way. Family-friendly#Media has some discussion of this. As for the single article in this category at the moment, I can't find any independent sources using that label to characterise it as "family friendly". --bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about horticulture and gardening

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) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The members of this category are not about ‘ horticulture and gardening’ but mention gardening in the title. I have made a table below so you can see precisely how tenuous category and article are. It is a failure of the whole ‘Songs about…’ category scheme which is created because of a song title, ignoring the term ‘defining’ from WP:CAT and the use of linguistic terms such as allegory, parable, metaphor etc.
Caption text
Song title from text comment
The Garden of Allah (song) It is presented as a modern-day fable in which the Devil discovers he has become obsolete. should not be in category
Garden of Love (song) Nothing in text No reason to be category.
Garden Song Nothing in text No reason to be category.
Homegrown Tomatoes Text is silent on meaning Only reason for inclusion is title
Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary Like many nursery rhymes, it has acquired various historical explanations. One theory is that it is religious allegory of Catholicism Mention of a garden in verse 3 gets this into this category.
Octopus's Garden Text covers about how octopus’s build with rocks and shiny objects Not about horticulture/gardens
Sing a Song of Sixpence The 4th verse is The maid was in the garden Hanging out the clothes Interpretation in the text would not be reason to include in this category.
Ska vi plocka körsbär i min trädgård Translates as “Shall we pick cherries in my garden” the text continues as “The song received attention due to its lyrics, which contained a high degree of sexual innuendo.” About sex then?
Rose Garden (Joe South song) (I already removed this) sometimes stylized as "(I Never Promised You A) Rose Garden" Not about a rose garden.
Richhoncho (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Choirmasters

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) 02:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think there is notable difference in meaning between the two terms. I think the smaller category was simply created in ignorance of the other. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The Czech subcat should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (also Czech subcat). I might have voted to reverse merge, but the target is well populated with national categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisted after adding the subcategory to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge per nom (also Czech subcat).. --Just N. (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jessie (2011 TV series)

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) 16:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: My understanding is that we need at least a dozen (12) pages before a category or template can—or, rather, should—be created. However, even if we say, for example, half of a dozen (6), this category is WP:EPONYMOUS. This means that only things related to the main topic should be listed here, which in this case would be only the page for the 2011 television series. If we really wanted to stretch the "boundaries," then the episode list for the 2011 series as well, but that's still not enough. Everything else is WP:NOTDEFINING. (Side note: I pruned the category already. Just mentioning that so what I said previously still makes sense.) Amaury • 20:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- Everything in the category was perfectly defining, there was the main show, it's spin-off Bunk'd, both show's episode lists, Oye Jassie (which is the show's adaptation in India), and Austin & Jessie & Ally All Star New Year (a crossover episode involving that show). It matches other similar categories like Category:Good Luck Charlie and Category:That's So Raven, you are not supposed to prune categories prior to deletion (which I already reverted), and this really just seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Oinkers42) (talk)
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. This is a TV series that was completed 5 years ago and will never have more than a few members. Even given the spin-offs and episode list being having this series determined as being defining which is contentious, still won't ever be more than a few members. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Suvorov

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Soviet award. Checked several bios including Grigory Levin, Fedor Zinchenko, Aleksey Alelyukhin, Stanislav Poplavsky, Kirill Meretskov, Aleksey Semenovich Zhadov, Nikolai Berzarin, and some others, none more than mention the award. (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose This has happened to lots of Soviet award categories at the hands of everyday users with little understanding of Soviet awards. It was quite a senior award - only senior officers like regimental commanders could receive it per the award criteria. In fact, only one woman, Yevdokiya Bershanskaya, received it. Unfortunately, our categories do not disambiguate between the Soviet and Russian Orders of Suvorov with different criteria. It is nothign like ACTUAL non-defining awards like the medal for battle merit. It was NEVER used as a jubilee medal. For heavens sake can people with minimal knowledge of Russia and the Soviet Union stop nominating so many of such categories for deletion! The under-representation of such topics in English doesn't mean their not notable. Sincerenly, a user whose written numerous biographies of recipients of the award.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of the Soviet Union. Clearly defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Listify The recipients are indeed very prominent but so much so the award is consistently part of a long list of other awards, none of which seem individually defining. For instance, look at a Chairman Panteleimon Ponomarenko, Marshal Fyodor Tolbukhin, and Marshal Vladimir Sudets. (The category contents should be listified within Order of Suvorov though and I can help.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. That is, with all due respect, a horrible idea. We do not make exhaustive lists for recipients of even higher awards like the Order of Lenin, since it is impossible for practical reasons to include all recipients of it. Having the award does not automatically make one notable, and many recipients of it will never be notable for a wikipedia article. The people in the category would be only a tiny fraction of those awarded it. 7267 received the Soviet version of the award, and receiving it, while quite an honor, is not comparable to the title Hero of the Soviet Union (in being a huge qualifier) - many recipients of the award are prominent and have articles, but many are also quite obscure. It would set a precedent for having to create corresponding articles for other high orders for high officers like the Orders of Kutuzov, Order of Alexander Nevsky, etc - all very tedious and pointless. There is inherent usefullness to have a CATEGORY for recipients of an award - to know who received it, and for filtration of results via petscan (a great aid in identifying historic photos). Please, those of you that don't know ---- about Soviet awards and have never written a Soviet biography in your life, stay out of this. Or at least research the Soviet award system THOROUGHLY. Be able to recall the relative importance in actuallty of such awards - often not quite comparable to that of the US (ex, some awards that were ranked below others were treated as more prestigious due to rarity, and how defining an award is to a person depends heavily on their position - Bershanskaya getting the Order of Suvorov was HUGE and defining, even if it wasn't very defining for generals and marshals like Zhukov). Due to the deficiency of enwiki content on Russian history, the category of recipients is currently quite small, but the list of notable recipients is much larger (ruwiki has articles for over 1000 recipients of it) - putting that many names in the Order of Suvorov article after their articles get translated (because we do intend to correct the shortage of articles over time) would be a NIGHTMARE. You clearly pulled names from the recipients of the 1st class of the award for examples of people who had so many other awards that the Order of Suvorov wasn't defining for them (since the 1st class version was awarded to high-ranking people). But the case is VERY different for lower grades of it, for whom receiving it was an incredibly defining moment of their careers (like recipients of the 3rd class of it) For those people, the award was no small thing. It was a big-ass ceremony complete with official renaming of the regiment they commanded to include the name of the order in it (ex, "125-й гвардейский бомбардировочный Борисовский орденов Суворова и Кутузова авиационный полк им. М.Расковой") logo of the order put on the regiment flag, in other words defining AF.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short Reply My proposal is to listify the category contents (i.e. the notable recipients) not all recipients. Totally agree that the lower grades are more likely to be defining but those recipients are also less likely to be notable, creating a catch-22. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That list with eventually become VERY, VERY, VERY long as enwiki closes our Russian content gap, making such plan unfeasible.
        • Even for the Victoria Cross we have lists of recipients, so there is no reason to assume that this is not feasible for this award. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exhaustive lists are for HUGE awards like the highest of their kind in a state, not every single kind of upper award. Having to make exhausive lists for recipients of the Order of Suvorov means we will have to do the same for the Order of Alexander Nevsky, Order of Kutuzov, Nakhimov, all split up into multiple sub-pages one for each letter of the alphabet, and the vast majority of those lists will all be redlinks. It is far more REASONABLE, RATIONAL, and PRACTICAL to just simply CATEGORIZE the articles for people that got it as recipients of it than to make a bunch of exhausive lists for different classes all the high Soviet awards by surname. What you are asking for isn't simply one list but a multitude of them. The Order of Suvorov is no more or less defining than other Soviet orders that aren't under discussion, and this ruling will set precedents effecting those. Having an articles listing all recipients of the Order of Suvorov demands the same for similar orders, and that's a huge mess - even Russian wikipedia has no such lists despite having far many more lists of Soviet award recipients. Just LEAVE THE CATEGORY ALONE and include a small partial list of significant recipients of the award in the article.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are mistaken. There is no need for exhaustive lists with many redlinks. A list with recipiants who actually have an article in en.wp will suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked Planespotter's theory that the definingness of this award is evident on ruwiki although not necessarily on enwiki. To check the theory I went to the ruwiki category for the lowest rank of the order, third class.[1] Then, I randomly selected six biographies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] As it turns out none of these bios more than mention the award, often listing it with more prestigious ones. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is always one of the first few awards listed, nothing like the jubilee medals or medals for bettle merit which are often ommitted, and it always ranks near top of ribbon rack order. The articles you listed were often the short Hero of the Soviet Union biographies with miminal elaboration of a life timeline and a list of their few highest awards (which of course always included the order of Suvorov). If their biographies were fuller, there would be more information about the circumstances surrounding the order of Suvorov they got. This award is far more defining than others that we do have categories for (and those should not be deleted either), like the Order of the Red Banner and Order of Lenin. Also, prestige is relative in the Soviet award system. While the Order of Suvorov was below the Order of the Red Banner in ribbon rack guidelines, it was de facto far more prestigious due to rarity and high standards for awarding it. Those high stardards for the award are a defining feature of it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For heavens sake, can we just leave Russian awards categories to the Russian history wikipedians?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The Order of Suvorov was awarded to the commanders of the Red Army for outstanding achievements in command and troops control. This is a rather rare and prestigious award. Eugene M (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC) — Eugene M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Eugene M may have a small edit count on English Wikipedia, but he is one of the most active users in Russian Wikipedia on the subject of award recipients, rendering his opinion worth considering.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eugene M, that !vote to "Speedy Keep" should be ignored by the closer, because WP:CSK clearly does not apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioning the award is sufficient justification for retention of the category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, @Hawkeye7, mentioning the award is not sufficient justification for retention. Please read WP:OCAWARD and WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me quote WP:DEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, @Hawkeye7. But it is at best debatable whether a "mention" satisfies that, and in any case nobody has offered any evidence about usage in reliable sources. Ru.wiki is not a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          True, but whether an article belongs in a category is determined by the reliable sources in the article. That a mere mention satisfies WP:DEFINING is strongly implied, given that date of birth is considered defining. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hawkeye7 ― SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hawkeye7, PlanespotterA320, et al. Continue to have strong problems with way a survey of our articles - which are non RSs - are being used to create a misleading impression of 'defining'. Spokoyni (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a total violation of our overcat by award rules. Categories like this have lead to insane amounts of category clutter and need to be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't if you know anything about Soviet awards. An actual cause of insane category clutter amounting to "total violation of our overcat by award rules" would be having categories for all the GPW jubilee medals. But a high order like this? Absolutely not.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Prince Henry

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining either for Portuguese or foreign recipients (to whom it seems to be awarded as a diplomatic souvenir). Not more than mentioned in any of the bios I checked including Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo, Júlio Miranda Calha, Adelino da Palma Carlos, Beatriz Batarda, Celeste Rodrigues, Jorge Sampaio, etc. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Portugal. So it's sometimes awarded to others. So what? So are most honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the majority of the total number of awards might be issued domestically, the majority of notable recipients appear to be foreign. WP:OCAWARD guides us to look at the latter: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of domestic articles from Portuguese Wikipedia is certainly relevant but the articles there don't treat this award as defining according to Google translate (1, 2, 3). Keeping this category for navigation under WP:OCAWARD assumes a double hypothetical: that English Wikipedia will eventually get some of the same articles and those articles would treat the award completely differently. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly severe procedural flaws to use our articles, non RSs, and often abridged and incomplete, especially when on non-English speaking subjects, to determine what is or is not, defining. Please research the awards properly before deciding on nominating. Spokoyni (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a total violation of our overcat by award rules. Categories like this have lead to insane amounts of category clutter and need to be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint James of the Sword

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Portuguese award. Checked several bios and it's not more than mentioned in any of them, Portuguese or foreign. People like Lech Walesa, Josip Broz Tito, José Gerson da Cunha, Oscar Niemeyer, Reynaldo dos Santos, António Cabreira, etc. are not known for receiving this award. (t · c) buidhe 04:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Portugal. So it's sometimes awarded to others. So what? So are most honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the majority of the total number of awards might be issued domestically, the majority of notable recipients appear to be foreign. WP:OCAWARD guides us to look at the latter: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Listify While this award had other purposes, this tree consists mostly of articles that received it as a diplomatic souvenir which isn't remotely defining to Napoleon, Guangxu Emperor, or George IV. (The category contents should be listified within Military Order of Saint James of the Sword and I can help.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Furius (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and RevelationDirect. Maybe listify. But surely nondefining. --Just N. (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The decision that it is 'non-defining' is limited to scanning a few wikipedia articles and making a judgement, rather than any understanding of the award and what it entails. A serious lack of scholarship. Spokoyni (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia categories are not research tools for experts on awards but rather navigational tools for lay readers to help find articles, in this case biographies. - RevelationDirect (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, my comment is on the way the research has been done to decide these categories to nominate. Spokoyni (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a total violation of our overcat by award rules. Categories like this have lead to insane amounts of category clutter and need to be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Establishments in Puducherry

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 option B. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming either:
OPTION A — fix anachronism
33 more Puducherry → Pondicherry
or
OPTION B — fix anachronism and remove disambiguator
50 more Puducherry → Pondicherry and/or remove disambiguator
Nominator's rationale: The first issue with these categories is an anachronism. This territory had been a French colony for centuries, known as Pondichéry. In English, the name was Pondicherry. That name was retained when it became part of India in the 1950s.
In September 2006, it was renamed Puducherry. However, these categories use the new name even before it was adopted. Option A fixes that anachronism.
The second issue is the use of the disambiguator "(union territory)", which I think is un-needed. Option B fixes that anachronism and also removes the disambiguator.
There is certainly a prima facie case for disambiguation, because three entities share the same name: Puducherry (union territory), Puducherry district, and the city of Pondicherry.
However, on closer scrutiny, I think that the disambiguation is superfluous. First, the category for the union territory is the undisambiguated Category:Puducherry. Same with its subcats. Secondly, any ambiguity is irrelevant, because the district and the city are subsets of the territory ... so even if a reader or editor assumes the narrower meaning they still end up in the correct category, because we will never have enough content to justify establishment categories for the district or city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion and survey (Puducherry)
add your comments and !votes here
  • Support (weak preference option B), to solve anachronism issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we have a disambiguator in the article we should have it in the category as well to make sure they propoerly link.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Option B. Seems short and crisp nevertheless unabigious enough. --Just N. (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complicated -- The Union Territory consists of four separate areas, being together the former French possessions in India, but these are hundreds of miles apart. fix anachronisms to the spelling of the day. There should be one union territory parent category (a container) and a separate category for each of the four constituent districts. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little content in the union territory categories to begin with, so there is (almost) nothing going to be left for the other three districts separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Marcocapelle. Splitting these tiny categories would be very unhelpful.
    And in any case, @Peterkingiron's suggestion doesn't address the nomination, which is about what to call the categories for the union territory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_29&oldid=1027001016"