Category talk:Award winners

Proposed consolidating
Honestly, what is the difference between Category:Prize winners, Category:Award winners, and Category:Recipients of formal honors? Is there any reason these three should not be consolidated? (And I propose Category:Award winners as the most generic, intuitive, and easy to spell internationally.) (X-posting on all 3 talk pages) --LQ 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can speak to that ... I created the Award winners category just to consolidate all the award winners categories in a common place. Previously the awards category was getting both categories for awards and the people who had won them.  I agree there's not a big difference between award winners and prize winners ... all I did is if they called it an award, I put it in award winners, if it was called a prize, I put it in prize winners.  This is known as the principle of least astonishment. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record: CFD renamed everything to Category:Award winners.

lists versus categories for award winners
See Overcategorization and talk page Archive 2 for extensive discussion of issues with award-winners. The problem with these categories is not that they are vague (they are usually quite discrete); it is that they are In general most of these can and should be deleted, so long as the information they contain is migrated to a list either embedded in the award article or separate from the award article. --lquilter 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) usually not defining attributes (so not that helpful as a navigation aid from the article);
 * 2) add to category clutter (because notable people often receive multiple awards; and adding every one to the list of categories on an article would render it unusable as a navigation aid); and
 * 3) offer little or no navigational benefits from the category listing itself (the navigational benefits of the automatically-generated listing produced by creating a category for something are better served, in the case of award-recipients, by a manually produced list on the relevant article, which can include references, notes, sorting, etc.).
 * That is to say, most categories containing articles with "Category:Handy Dandy Prize winners" should be deleted and replaced with articles on the award that include a list ("The "Handy Dandy Prize" is an award for blah blah blah", and include a list of winners as part of the article.) --Lquilter 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sub-division
Really these should be divided into head sub-cats such as: sporting, Gallantry/Military, Scientific, Media, Orders of Chivalry (or whatever the term is) and so on. Not all can be so easily classified, but most can. Johnbod 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My hope is to get a structure on Category:Awards that can be eventually applied to Category:Award winners. But, I'd like to do two things first: (1) Run most of the award-winner categories through CFD because most of them are probably overcategorization by award. (2) If there aren't many of those categories left after that, get some consensus on whether articles on awards that include lists of award-winners need to be catted as both "awards" and "award winners"; seems unnecessary.  If that is the case then this "award winners" cat would just be a container for those few cats that are truly defining. --Lquilter 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove from Category:People?
Is there any particular reason this is still in Category:People? Quite a few of the awards and prizes listed go to organisations regularly; in particular, the Nobel Peace Prize and the Karlspreis.

I think I'm going to remove it, but if you put it back in, could you please explain, at least, how that is useful?

RandomP (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)