Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 15



Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam

 * 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) 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting designated terrorist organizations associated with islam


 * Nominator's rationale: This category may initially seem useful. But it largely duplicates the category tree of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. The category breaches WP:NPOV. It declares, in Wikipedia's voice, that certain organisations are "terrorist". Many of these designations are made by dubious governments with vested interests. For example, the United Arab Emirates has designated the Muslim Association of Britain as "terrorist". No other global government has. The British government hasn't. And yet this category is applied. The Muslim American Society is another example. Even Council on American–Islamic Relations. These categories fail WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCEGRS and the broader criteria at WP:CAT AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep doesn't duplicate Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator, as this category is for specifically Islamic based organisations only. If it's NPOV, why aren't you also listing Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator for deletion? If it's a government designating it, how it is "Wikipedia's voice"? Nominators motives are questionable when they've been removing articles from the category over the past year because they don't like it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSORSHIP are not valid removal reasons, and meets WP:CAT as it's reliably sourced.--Bali Makmur (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "If it's a government designating it, how it is "Wikipedia's voice"?" - exactly why I'm not nominating the government designator categories but this category instead. I removed the category from an article where there was no consensus to keep it. You re-added it without seeking consensus. You consistently fail to edit in accord with WP:NPOV. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the wording "associated with" is inappropriate. It implies a formal association. Definitions of the word associated include "a confederate; an accomplice or ally"; "a companion or comrade" and "connected, joined, or related, especially as a companion or colleague" AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this seems inappropriate. We have Category:Islamist groups and Category:Islamic fundamentalism for appropriate organisations. In addition, the removal of the named designator makes this category a weasel wording. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but purge. A few of these designations are slightly bizarre, and probably relate to internal politics, or related to designating anyone opposed to the present regime as terrorist; and we may on occasions be suffering from inappropriate translation of other languages, where the primary language does not imply causing terror.  The subject is a difficult one due to the views of multiple countries.  I would suggest that there is a general consensus between the western powers - NATO members + Australia.  I too do not like "associated with": if the ideology is Islamic, they are Islamic terrorists.  However that does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists; they are not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, or possibly alt rename to as a subcategory of . It'd be utterly WP:POV to present organizations like the Muslim Association of Britain, the Gülen movement or the World Uyghur Congress as Islamic "terrorist organizations", controversial or not, just because they're persecuted by an authoritarian government they're staunchly opposing. Also, "associated with" is inappropriate – Islamism has to be at the core of a group's agenda to justify association with Islamic terrorism. Therefore, I believe,  sufficiently captures the clear-cut cases.--PanchoS (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Designated terrorist organizations claiming to be Islamic this way we get away with "related" with is weasel-wordy and also dispose of whether the group is or isn't Islamic (i.e., what they do is or is not contrary to Islamic belief, practice, teaching, and law). This is a notable set of organizations; their claim to adherence to certain Islamic doctrine is what brings them recruits and establishes their street cred. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Organizations claiming to be Islamic designated as terrorist by most western countries, this is the only way to correctly deal with the examples that PanchoS provided earlier. As a second option, I wouldn't really object deletion either, because this is pretty narrow categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I oppose the two above rename proposals. The wording is clunky and it does not address the issues I have raised. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the only possible solution would be to create Category:Organizations promoting a political Islam designated as terrorist by x country and having lots of seperate categories, and lots of categories for most organizations, but that is a mess. We should not place in this category Palestinian organizations that support suicide bombings, etc, but have as their goal a state that is not inherently Islamic, no matter how much they try to conform to Sharia in their gaining of financing, etc. This leads to gradations not easily covered by categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Diacritics

 * 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 Category:Diacritics and split Category:Alphabetic diacritics into Category:Latin-script diacritics, etc. (by language). ~ RobTalk 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Diacritics into Category:Alphabetic diacritics


 * Nominator's rationale: Is there a difference between a diacritic and an alphabetic diacritic? Category:Alphabetic diacritics is the more comprehensive category, so can we merge Category:Diacritics into it? Dr.enh (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments: there is no article Alphabetic diacritic, so a reverse merge to Category:Diacritics might be better. User:Verdy p, who set up Category:Alphabetic diacritics, wrote that it is for left-to-right scripts: Latin, Cyrillic, Greek. Well, it's rather POV to exclude Arabic, Hebrew etc from being "alphabetic". Moreover, a few diacritics are used with e.g. both Latin and Greek letters, but not all the pages in that category are used with multiple alphabets, so might it be best to split Category:Alphabetic diacritics into Latin diacritics, Greek diacritics etc? – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not a POV, but part of a published standard. Read more about the Unicode standard and the terminology of what are "alphabets", don't confuse them with the more general "writing systems" (which also include separate "numeral systems") ! verdy_p (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt split per . However, I'd propose splitting to, etc. to avoid confusion with the language, and per consistency with the existing . --PanchoS (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why splitting these? all Latin/Greek/Cyrillic diacritics below are encoded identically, they are unified in Unicode, and most of them are in the same "generic" block (though they do not apply to all scripts). There's only a few Cyrillic specific diacritics for numbers (which are not alphabetic, but Cyrillic use the same digits as Latin. Digits are not part of the three alphabets. However there are numbers written with letters in Latin and Greek and Greek may distinguish digits from letters using a diacritic.
 * On the opposite, the diacritics for Indic scripts, Hebrew, and Arabic were clearly separated even when they "look" the same across several scripts. verdy_p (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Categories are not driven by encoding standards, but by usefulness for navigation. Although some diacritics e.g. circumflex are used in all three of the above alphabets, others are specific to one script; e.g. iota subscript, rough and smooth breathings are used only in Greek. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are various types of diacritics, not all intended for alphabetic scripts, or even abjads, abugidas and any letter systems, but for use with symbols. Hebrew and Arabic are not "alphabets" (they are abjads and work also very differently from abugidas where there are also vowel diactritics but changing the inherent vowel of consonnants, plus diacritics to suppress the inherent vowel or alter the other vowels, or the consonnant). Abjads and abugidas have a very different encoding scheme (and let's not speak about a few scripts that have their own specific encoding, not following the logical ordering but a visual ordering such as Thai, for legacy reasons of compatibility with former non-Unicode standards...). You seem to confuse all writing systems as if they were "alphabetic" (this is an abuse of language). verdy_p (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When I was taught Hebrew, the tutor used the word "alphabet", and I do not remember coming across these alternative terms. The article on Alphabet currently starts with the commonplace wider user of the term (most modern alphabets, including Arabic), and then introduces a "true" alphabet using the distinctions that you have made. It is too much to call the common usage "an abuse of language". – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Split the alphabetic one by alphabet. If the same diacritical mark is used on more than one alphabet (e.g. Latin and Cyrillic, it can be categorised in both categories.  The fact that Hebrew uses points to indicate vowels is the very reason why we should have different categories for each alphabet or script.  I think that what has happened here is that the category under discussion (which should largely be a container category) but has collected items that should be in the alphabetic one, which was probably originally intended for Greek and its derivatives, Latin & Cyrillic.  Hebrew does have an alphabet.  The first letter is I believe Aleph, which (though cognate with alpha) has a completely differnet value.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment, the discussion is now about splitting a category that originally wasn't nominated. I've tagged that category now. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Palmas Pueblo

 * 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: upmerge to Category:Cataño, Puerto Rico. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting palmas pueblo


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for two individual neighbourhoods in the municipality of Cataño, Puerto Rico, as well as one additional article which may be falsely conflating those two neighbourhoods into a larger entity that doesn't actually exist as such. These are the only two neighbourhoods in Cataño with separate standalone articles of their own, and the "common entity" article falsely claims they're in San Juan rather than Cataño — but Cataño only has a total population of about 28K, so separate standalone articles about each individual neighbourhood within it may not actually be necessary or warranted. And even if they are kept, Cataño's eponymous category isn't large enough to need comprehensive subcategorization of every individual thing in it — this was originally created by an editor who's since been blocked, in part for obsessively subcategorizing Puerto Rican topics into unbelievably overgranular (and sometimes entirely unverifiable) categories like "Island Republic" and "Foyer of the Capital". Upmerge to . Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom (not delete). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedian educators

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedian educators to Category:Wikipedian teachers
 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant, mostly empty except for the WP:NOTHERE-blocked creator having added themselves to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of England

 * 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) 04:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of England to Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of England, also
 * Category:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of Scotland to Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of Scotland
 * Category:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of Great Britain to Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of Great Britain
 * Category:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of Ireland to Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of Ireland
 * Category:Subsidiary Marquessates in the Peerage of the United Kingdom to Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories contain marquessates which are held as a subsidiary title by dukes. I don't think such a category is necessary. The title of marquess is the rarest in the British peerage, and so even if all of them were to be placed into categories, this still wouldn't require sub-categorization on grounds of numbers. All these articles are redirects to the ducal titles, and so appear in italics in the category. This is sufficient to distinguish marquessates held by dukes from those not held by dukes. See Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 7 for a similar case. Opera hat (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * merge per precedent of Courtesy earldoms. Where a Marquess was promoted to Duke, he might be granted a new marquess title if his dukedom had the same name, so that his heir would have a separate courtesy title.  If the dukedom had a different name the heir would use his old title.  This is an insubstantial distinction.  Almost invariably the article on the title will be a redirect to the main title, whether or not the marquessate was at one stage the senior title.  A category to house redirects is not very useful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Nationalism by country or region

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Nationalism by country or region to Category:Nationalism by continent
 * Nominator's rationale: The category contains nationalism by continent and is described as containing "a listing of nationalism organized by continent." While the whole area remains work in progress, this category's name, currently partly overlapping with, should follow its content. PanchoS (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Economic disasters

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic disasters to Category:Economic collapses
 * Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article Economic collapse. Also I would suggest to remove the header text and replace it by a cat main template. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per main article and also because it is slightly less normative. --PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Prefer Category:Economic crises as more NPOV and perhaps slightly broader. The main article may need renaming: it is not worthy that several of its "main" sub-articles use this word.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (as nom) I'm not against merging to Category:Economic crises either, but the categories should preferably be merged after merging the articles, not before. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

Economic disasters by country

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic disasters in Brazil to Category:Economic crises in Brazil
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic disasters in Europe to Category:Economic crises in Europe
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic disasters in the United States to Category:Economic crises in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, while every collapse is a crisis, not every crisis is a collapse, and these categories combine collapses with more 'regular' crises. Note: if these renames are being implemented, the parent category of each should be changed from Category:Economic disasters to Category:Economic crises. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Note that this would push the three nominated categories a level up to the preexisting, where there already is . --PanchoS (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Crisis is a more appropriate term for the articles in the Brazil category than 'disaster' is. giso6150 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support moving to crises, which is a much more NPOV term. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Mythemes

 * 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'm ignoring Stefanomione's comments here. His contributions to categories and CFD have been so off-the-wall that he has recently been topic-banned from categories and CFD. If anyone objects to me doing this, let me know. Here, the nomination seems to be sound.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mythemes


 * Nominator's rationale: delete as a non-defining characteristic. The term mytheme isn't even mentioned in most of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - We also have the related Category:Recurrent elements in fairy tales, both are part of Category:Narrative units. Stefanomione (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OSE, i.e. it's not an argument against WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. We could rename to Category:Recurrent elements in myths. Stefanomione (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider that defining either, the articles are occasionally about myths and if so they are seldom about recurrent elements. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Paintings by subject

 * 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) 04:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Paintings by theme to Category:Paintings by subject
 * Nominator's rationale: Analogical to Category:Sculptures by subject, Category:Statues by subject ---> More broadly, to  Category:Art by subject. Stefanomione (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per lack of a well-developed "by theme" tree. The only other "by theme" category I could find was Category:Songs by theme but this has been parented to Category:Works by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Paris culture

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Paris culture to Category:Culture of Paris
 * Category:Bordeaux culture to Category:Culture of Bordeaux
 * Category:Marseille culture to Category:Culture of Marseille


 * Category:Adelaide culture to Category:Culture of Adelaide
 * Category:Brisbane culture to Category:Culture of Brisbane
 * Category:Melbourne culture to Category:Culture of Melbourne
 * Category:Sydney culture to Category:Culture of Sydney


 * Category:Ahmedabad culture to Category:Culture of Ahmedabad
 * Category:Bangalore culture to Category:Culture of Bangalore
 * Category:Chennai culture to Category:Culture of Chennai
 * Category:Delhi culture to Category:Culture of Delhi
 * Category:Jaipur culture to Category:Culture of Jaipur
 * Category:Kolkata culture to Category:Culture of Kolkata
 * Category:Kollam culture to Category:Culture of Kollam
 * Category:Lucknow culture to Category:Culture of Lucknow
 * Category:Mumbai culture to Category:Culture of Mumbai
 * Category:Pune culture to Category:Culture of Pune
 * Category:Surat culture to Category:Culture of Surat
 * Category:Thiruvananthapuram culture to Category:Culture of Thiruvananthapuram
 * Category:Thrissur culture to Category:Culture of Thrissur
 * Category:Udaipur culture to Category:Culture of Udaipur
 * Category:Varanasi culture to Category:Culture of Varanasi


 * Category:Busan culture to Category:Culture of Busan
 * Category:Daejeon culture to Category:Culture of Daejeon
 * Category:Gwangju culture to Category:Culture of Gwangju
 * Category:Incheon culture to Category:Culture of Incheon
 * Category:Seoul culture to Category:Culture of Seoul
 * Category:Ulsan culture to Category:Culture of Ulsan


 * Category:Bangkok culture to Category:Culture of Bangkok
 * Category:Cairo culture to Category:Culture of Cairo
 * Category:Dar es Salaam culture to Category:Culture of Dar es Salaam
 * Category:Dhaka culture to Category:Culture of Dhaka
 * Category:Jerusalem culture to Category:Culture of Jerusalem
 * Category:Johannesburg culture to Category:Culture of Johannesburg
 * Category:Minsk culture to Category:Culture of Minsk
 * Category:Pyongyang culture to Category:Culture of Pyongyang
 * Category:Tehran culture to Category:Culture of Tehran
 * Category:Vienna culture to Category:Culture of Vienna
 * Category:Vitebsk culture to Category:Culture of Vitebsk
 * Category:Zürich culture to Category:Culture of Zürich

There are two widely established variations: While "Culture in" might tend to be interpreted as high culture, it might at the same time be slightly more pluralistic and open towards minority culture. The alternative wording "Culture of" would probably stress local traditions, including "trivial" every-day culture. It might be seen as excluding culture that is not considered sufficiently "typical" of a city, while including local traditions continued or upheld somewhere else. I personally still tend to prefer the second variant ("culture of") as the more common, less synthetic wording. In article mainspace, almost all overview articles are named that way, see for example Culture of New York City, Culture of London, Culture of Paris, Culture of Sydney, or Culture of Hong Kong. High culture mostly belongs in the "Arts in" subcategory anyway, so a slightly more colloquial parent category that better covers traditions and every-day culture might be advantageous. It should also be possible to adjust for unwanted connotations by adding some short, clarifying explanation. Note that the remaining categories, be it or  would be subsequently brought into line with whatever is the outcome of this CfD nomination, by followup nominations and/or WP:CFD/S. PanchoS (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: We should bring these into line with the majority of subcategories in and.


 * Rename per nom to make the scope clearer. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Although the current naming patter (Udaipur Culture) is short and sweet, but if standards say so and if this is going to make Wikipedia a better place then lets make this change. Vishal0soni (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nom. Having worked a bit in this area it was always necessary to just remember which cities were outliers to the preferred x of y structure. This will save time and needless mistakes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame inductees

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame inductees
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:DNWAUC
 * The South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame is virtual museum and an annual banquet that has awarded 275 athletes (source) of which 12 have Wikipedia articles. There is a catch 22 with many local awards: either you'r not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article or your famous enough that this award is not defining which is why we don't have any other state-level sports HoF awards. There is no main article yet so I created a list of the category's contents on the creator's talk page. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Brianhass as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject South Dakota. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Surely a NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 Smile

 * 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) SST flyer 11:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of the Smile
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The Order of the Smile is charming Polish award for people who make children smile. Over 1,000 people have received the award but very few of those have a Wikipedia article. What's left is an unusual group: an Olympic swimmer, Steven Spielberg, a Soviet animator, the Dalai Lama, the King of Saudi Arabia, J. K. Rowling, a President of Poland, his wife, Oprah, Nelson Mandela, a comic book artist and a pope. I already listed the contents of the category here. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Poland. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. 39 recipients seems like more then enough for me, and did you notice that pl wiki category has 200+ entries? They will eventually get TLed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't WP:SMALLCAT; it's that 39 (or 200) people aren't defined by making children smile and have nothing else in common. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- A NN award, depending on the POV of a magazine editor. No objection to listifying first.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DexDor(talk) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, almost every category includes elements that have only one characteristic in common. This is what categories are for. — Kpalion(talk) 15:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think that having this award is a defining characteristic of, for example, Nelson Mandela? And if you think we should categorize by non-defining characteristics then how do you think we can avoid articles being in dozens/hundreds/thousands of categories (with consequent effects on editors)? For more info about my position you can look at this. DexDor(talk) 18:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * delete. I would say that this is not the type of category for awards that would be regarded as the exceptions spoken of in WP:OCAWARD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.