Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 22



ACW Union units

 * 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 Category:Units and formations of the Union Army from Alabama format. There wasn't a strong consensus for this, but it seems to be the best option based on the discussions. There was no discussion of the non-state ones, so I'm renaming those as nominated, with the caveat that I am using "units and formations" to match the others (rather than just "units"). If these non-state categories need to be adjusted, a follow-up nomination should be permitted. This discussion was closed in conjunction with this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming each of the following:
 * Category:Alabama Union Civil War regiments to Category:Alabama Union Civil War units
 * Category:Arkansas Union Civil War regiments to Category:Arkansas Union Civil War units
 * Category:California Civil War regiments to Category:California Civil War units
 * Category:Colorado Civil War regiments to Category:Colorado Territory Civil War units
 * Category:Connecticut Civil War regiments to Category:Connecticut Civil War units
 * Category:Dakota Civil War regiments to Category:Dakota Territory Civil War units
 * Category:Delaware Civil War regiments to Category:Delaware Civil War units
 * Category:District of Columbia Civil War regiments to Category:District of Columbia Civil War units
 * Category:Engineer regiments of the Union Army‎ to Category:Engineer units of the Union Army‎
 * Category:Florida Union Civil War regiments to Category:Florida Union Civil War units
 * Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Civil War regiments to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Civil War units
 * Category:Illinois Civil War regiments to Category:Illinois Civil War units
 * Category:Indian Territory Union Civil War regiments to Category:Indian Territory Union Civil War units
 * Category:Indiana Civil War regiments to Category:Indiana Civil War units
 * Category:Iowa Civil War regiments to Category:Iowa Civil War units
 * Category:Kansas Civil War regiments to Category:Kansas Civil War units
 * Category:Kentucky Union Civil War regiments to Category:Kentucky Union Civil War units
 * Category:Louisiana Union Civil War regiments to Category:Louisiana Union Civil War units
 * Category:Maine Civil War regiments to Category:Maine Civil War units
 * Category:Maryland Union Civil War regiments to Category:Maryland Union Civil War units
 * Category:Massachusetts Civil War regiments to Category:Massachusetts Civil War units
 * Category:Michigan Civil War regiments to Category:Michigan Civil War units
 * Category:Minnesota Civil War regiments to Category:Minnesota Civil War units
 * Category:Missouri Union Civil War regiments to Category:Missouri Union Civil War units
 * Category:Nebraska Civil War regiments to Category:Nebraska Territory Civil War units
 * Category:Nevada Civil War regiments to Category:Nevada Civil War units
 * Category:New Hampshire Civil War regiments to Category:New Hampshire Civil War units
 * Category:New Jersey Civil War regiments to Category:New Jersey Union Civil War units
 * Category:New Mexico Civil War regiments to Category:New Mexico Territory Civil War units
 * Category:New York (state) Civil War regiments to Category:New York (state) Civil War units
 * Category:North Carolina Union Civil War regiments to Category:North Carolina Union Civil War units
 * Category:Ohio Civil War regiments to Category:Ohio Civil War units
 * Category:Oregon Civil War regiments to Category:Oregon Civil War units
 * Category:Pennsylvania Civil War regiments to Category:Pennsylvania Civil War units
 * Category:Rhode Island Civil War regiments to Category:Rhode Island Civil War units
 * Category:South Carolina Union Civil War regiments to Category:South Carolina Union Civil War units
 * Category:Tennessee Union Civil War regiments to Category:Tennessee Union Civil War units
 * Category:Texas Union Civil War regiments to Category:Texas Union Civil War units
 * Category:United States Colored Troops Civil War regiments‎ to Category:United States Colored Troops Civil War units
 * Category:United States Regular Army Civil War regiments‎ to Category:United States Regular Army Civil War units
 * Category:United States Volunteer Civil War regiments‎ to Category:United States Volunteer Civil War units
 * Category:Vermont Civil War regiments to Category:Vermont Union Civil War units
 * Category:Washington Civil War regiments to Category:Washington Territory Civil War units
 * Category:West Virginia Civil War regiments to Category:West Virginia Union Civil War units
 * Category:Wisconsin Civil War regiments to Category:Wisconsin Civil War units
 * Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion. More inclusive noun; existing noun "regiments" doesn't adequately cover other unit types like battalions and batteries. I have proposed adding the word "territory" to the category if the place indicated was not a state until after 1865. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename all- Nomination solves two errors - the miscategorization of battalions/batteries/etc as regiments, and the faulty naming of the territory ones. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Am relieved that this is a group nomination, unlike the previous attempt. Am concerned that "unit" is an Americanism and would have favoured "military units". But as these are all American anyway, I'm not concerned enough to oppose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:Buckshot06 makes and excellent case in the April 23 discussion than my new category names are do not match WP:MILMOS. If they were to do so, concerns from Laurel Lodged would be addressed. BusterD (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I propose a different naming structure which better follows MILMOS: ex. Category:Military units and formations of the Union Army from Alabama. Comments? BusterD (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Based on comments elsewhere Category:Units and formations of the Union Army from Alabama. "Military" is made superfluous by "army". BusterD (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2021 (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:Heads of government who were later imprisoned

 * 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. (To the debate I would add that the fact that a person is imprisoned does not necessarily mean that they were convicted of a crime.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting heads of government who were later imprisoned
 * Nominator's rationale: Looks like trivial intersection, an imprisonment after one's term of office is sometimes non-defining. And the category has been listified anyway. Brandmeistertalk  20:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If kept, rename to something like Category:Heads of government who were imprisoned for alleged crimes conducted while in office. Not sure if we should keep it though, we already have a tree for politicians convicted for various crimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Alt if kept, rename to Category:Heads of government convicted of crimes per Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. Would have to be manually purged of those who were just arrested and not convicted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and if really necessary (for what reasons?) rename maybe to Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. --Just N. (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that category tree already exists, and heads of government who belong there are already in that tree, sorted by type of crime. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep -- There may be scope for purging this of those whose imprisonment was unrelated to their time in office (where the intersection would be trivial), but I suspect that many will have been imprisoned for alleged misfeasance while in office, as slightly nicer than assassination in the course of a coup d'etat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2021 (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:Monarchs imprisoned and detained during war

 * 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) 01:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Monarchs imprisoned and detained during war to Category:Monarchs captured as prisoners of war
 * Nominator's rationale: Using more standard prisoner of war term and one of the parent categories is Category:Prisoners of war. Brandmeistertalk  20:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Does it include monarchs later killed by the victors? Or is that a separate category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick look says yes, Cuauhtémoc for example who was executed. Brandmeistertalk  11:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, the target contains an anachronistic term, "prisoners of war" did not exist yet during the lifetime of many of these monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * rename Capture of a monarch by opponents in war is something quite different from an ordinary prisoner of war.  Some were victims of a lost civil war.  Others of international war.  James I of Scotland was captured by the English to prevent him reaching France, though I am not sure that England and Scotland were at war at the time.  Charles I and Maximillian both ended their lives by execution.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2021 (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 Iron Crown (Austria)

 * 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) 01:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of the iron crown (austria)
 * Nominator's rationale: Austrian award that ceased to be awarded officially in 1918. (Post-1918 awards must be unofficial). Recipients I checked either had it listed with other awards or not at all. Not defining for Otto von Bismarck, Walther Bronsart von Schellendorff, Joseph Radetzky von Radetz, Karl von Habsburg, Arthur Zimmermann, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Clicked through quite a few articles and these tend from German states and mention the award in passing. The Iron Cross seems much more prominent in these articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: All of the category contents are now listified within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the highest state honours of a major country, usually used to honour its own citizens. It carried automatic ennoblement. Of course it was defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2021 (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 St. Andrew

 * 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) 01:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of st. andrew
 * Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Russian empire / Russian Federation award often awarded to foreign royalty, politicians, or military leaders. Mentioned in a list of awards if at all in bios. Does not define Prince Fushimi Sadanaru, Elizabeth of Russia, Leo von Caprivi, Otto von Bismarck, Vasily Chichagov, Constantine II of Greece, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Narendra Modi, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't tell if all the foreign recipients received the award as a diplomatic souvenir or as distant relatives since the royal families were so intermarried. Either way, the articles offer no hint as to why it was awarded and it's treated as non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I just added a list of the recipients to the main article, Order of St. Andrew, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting a category for reciients of the highest honour awarded by a major country? Utter madness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2021 (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:Gabonese expatriate basketball people in the United States

 * 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 merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Gabonese expatriate basketball people in the United States to Category:Gabonese expatriates in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to per WP:SMALLCAT. Gabon is a relatively small population country (2.1 inhabitants) with few expatriates in the United States. There are no other sportspeople expatriates with articles and only 3 expatriates with articles overall. User:Namiba 13:26, 22 April 2021 (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:Syriac languages

 * 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 to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting syriac languages
 * Nominator's rationale: This category rests on a misconception, that various Christian Neo-Aramaic dialects are varieties of and/or descended from Syriac language, which is untrue. As stated by linguist Geoffrey Khan, "Neither the Jewish nor the Christian spoken NENA dialects appear to be direct descendants of the earlier literary forms of Aramaic such as Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic and Syriac." Turoyo is not NENA, but it is not descended from Syriac either, see. Any subcats can be recategorized into Category:Syriac language‎. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The term Syriac used to be used for a Biblical language that is not Hebrew. If appropriate a rename/merger to link it to Northeastern Neo-Aramaic might be possible.  I suspect this is a case where "fools rush in", which is why this is not a vote.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's another category, Category:Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects, for content related to NENA varieties. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Downmerge to Category:Syriac language, the content of this category should have been under there regardless of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Downmerge per Marco. Relying on a single opinion treads dangerously close to WP:OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2021 (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:Indian Institute of Technology Madras alumni

 * 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 for now. If the article space name changes through a re-opening of the RM or a fresh RM, the categories can follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Indian Institute of Technology Madras alumni to Category:IIT Madras alumni
 * Category:Indian Institute of Technology Madras faculty to Category:IIT Madras faculty
 * Category:Indian Institute of Technology Madras people to Category:IIT Madras people
 * Nominator's rationale: The main page was renamed to IIT Madras from the lengthy Indian Institute of Technology Madras. Also see category Category:IIT Bombay alumni as an equivalent to what I am requesting. Thanks VV 07:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support- I have added the 2 other Madras categories, to which the same rationale applies. This also applies more widely as most are now named IIT: see Category:Indian Institutes of Technology. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would not biing the alumni being renamed, but abbreviating IIT in the main article is obscure to non-cogniscenti, which is why WP discourages abbreviations. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this was part of the discussion related to the use of the popular name over the official name. Currently, there is a redirect from the official name to the popular name. VV 05:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Their website https://www.iitm.ac.in/ highlights IIT Madras. Oculi (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename this particular category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Striken given the RM flaws described below. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:IIT Bombay listed only 3 pages, related to 2 IITs. The RMTR which you implemented listed over a dozen other pages which were not listed in the linked RM, but which were each individually annotated As per consensus determined on Talk:IIT Bombay#Requested move 23 October 2020. It seems you did not spot that the rationale which @Roller26 gave for for the RMTR was false, and those pages should not have been moved by you. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Substatively, this wrong: the abbreviation is obscure.
 * Also, this is a procedural mess. It appears to have started with Talk:IIT Bombay, where the nominator @Roller26 listed two IITs, but specifically stated in the rationale that the proposal was to apply to 17 other unlisted IITs.  That is no way to build consensus: if other pages are involved they should be listed.
 * In this case, was moved to  as a result of a technical request by Roller26.  The technical request can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=986726653 ... where Roller26 falsely asserts that each of the moves requested is As per consensus determined on Talk:IIT Bombay#Requested move 23 October 2020. Not true: that discussion could not reach a consensus on unlisted pages.
 * Two other editors screwed up here:
 * non-admin @Buidhe should not have closed the RM as "moved" when it was procedurally flawed
 * admins Anthony Appleyard should not have accepted the technical requests on the basis of a false assertion
 * -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My close applied only to the specified move, as it had gone on for 7 days and was unopposed. Perhaps I should have relisted it, but I never intended this close to apply beyond the exact pages specified as I did not read "Similar is the case with all other 19 IITs." to include any other moves—one would have to apply separately to have those moved. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See discussion at Talk:IIT Bombay. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Anthony Appleyard, did you actually read what I wrote above?
 * It seems the proper procedure was not followed. If there is an issue with the RM of 17 IITs, it should be reopened. However my main point (which was not properly articulated in the RM itself) is the clause In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. in MOS:ACROTITLE. A vast majority of Indians (probably most South Asians), anyone connected with technology and engineering fields around the world know the abbreviation IIT but few recognize the full name, hence my RM in the first place. Roller26 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. There was no "RM of 17 IITs". There was a (poorly attended) RM of 3 articles. It does not grant a precedent to move other pages, you have to file a separate move request. Perhaps we should overturn all the article space moves and list all "IITs" together to see what the consensus is on naming. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant. Either relist all articles or all articles minus 3 (IIT Bombay, IIT Delhi, List of IIT Bombay people). Roller26 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Indeed, the abbreviation is obscure. If formally needed please revert the abbrev decision of the article name. --Just N. (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See the website. The name IIT Bombay is the popular name thought Indian Institute of Technology Bombay is the official name. VV 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural support per the new status quo in article space. However I have no issue with putting this nomination on hold if an RM is initiated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (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:Order of the Dannebrog

 * 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) 02:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting order of the dannebrog
 * grand commanders of the order of the dannebrog‎
 * noble knights of the order of the dannebrog
 * grand crosses of the order of the dannebrog
 * commanders first class of the order of the dannebrog‎
 * commanders of the order of the dannebrog
 * knights first class of the order of the dannebrog
 * knights of the order of the dannebrog
 * recipients of the cross of honour of the order of the dannebrog
 * commanders second class of the order of the dannebrog
 * Nominator's rationale: Danish award. Recipients such as Hermann Göring, Otto von Bismarck, Lord Mountbatten, Albert II of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, Niels Bohr, Thorvald Boye, Carsten Tank Nielsen, Mette Hønningen, Pierre Clostermann, Lauritz Melchior, Marcus Gjøe Rosenkrantz, etc. are not defined by the award, which tends to occur in a list of awards or not at all. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. Do you really think that receipt one of the main honours of Denmark is not defining for its Danish recipients? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Clicked through quite a few articles and this usually gets a passing reference in a list of other honours. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. See Order of the Dannebrog.  This is one of Denmark's main orders of chivalry, which now occupies a place similar to that of the UK's Order of the British Empire.  I see no case for piecemeal picking-off of national orders of chivalry.  They should all be considered together, and singling out an order from a small non-English-speaking country is no way to achieve consistent decision-making.
 * Please note that I am generally not a fan of awards categories, but I am even more troubled by the way in which systemic biases are unintentionally privileging the honours system of some countries. This needs an RFC. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs)
 * When we've had group CFD noms with small list of awards, concern is often expressed that distinct awards are being conflated; I can't imagine a meaningful outcome from an RFC trying to discuss the hundreds of diverse awards in Category:Orders of chivalry as a group. I share your support for avoiding bias and simultaneously want to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing more nominations for more countries. Some awards are defining and others are not which lends itself to individual consideration in CFD just like we do with other topics. - 22:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Necrothesp and BrownHairedGirl. --Just N. (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Furius (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2021 (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 Redeemer

 * 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) 03:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of the redeemer
 * Nominator's rationale: Greek state award, apparently often given to foreign nobility and politicians. Not at all defining for Emmanuel Macron, Gyula Andrássy, Otto von Bismarck, Otto of Greece, Hirohito, Miklós Horthy, Napoleon III, Nicholas II of Russia, Chiang Kai-shek, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not defining to the recipients and creates category clutter. Classic WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note The category contents are now listified in the main article, Order of the Redeemer, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the Romanian and Luxeumbourgish awards below, when we look at Greek wiki (see ), we find that the award isn't just for foreigners, that there are loads of notable individuals with the award, who are mentioned as having received the award in their articles, and thus it makes as much sense to have categories for this as for the OBE. Furius (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The presence of domestic articles from Greek 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 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) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't find the first a difficult hypothetical at all, and the existence of articles in other langs is clear evidence that the category has room to grow - we don't need to be certain that it will grow tomorrow. And the articles you cite mention the awards in comparable detail to, say, Eugene Gorman's status as an Category:Australian Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire. I just can't see how this can be anything other than one rule for Anglophone honours and one for other languages. Furius (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also not really sure what you need for "treat as defining". We have loads of person categories for things that are only mentioned briefly in an article (year of birth, place of origin, the school that they went to, date of death). Furius (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they actually want to delete categories for all honours. They're just starting with the non-Anglophone ones because they think there'll be less opposition. Then they can claim that consensus has been established and go after the Anglophone categories too. It's a well-established tactic for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Emperor Akihito is not in dozens upon dozens of categories for his year of birth so there's definitely more risk of category clutter with awards. WP:OCAWARD exists because some awards are defining and others aren't: an award that contributes to a recipients prominence rather than just reflects their status is usually what I look for to be defining and likely to aid navigation. Your assumption that Anglophone honours have been ignored in CFD is mistaken and include Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal, Category:Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame, Category:Winners of the Queen's Award for Voluntary Service, Category:Truman Scholars, Category:Guggenheim Fellows, Category:Recipients of the Order of Belize, Category:Young Victorians of the Year, Category:Waterstones Book of the Year, Category:Freemen of the City of London, Category:Empire Award winners, Category:World Peace Prize laureates, Category:Wright Brothers Medal recipients, and Category:Gatorade National Basketball Player of the Year. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Very few of those really seem germane to a discussion about national awards. The purple heart seems equivalent to the Polish one for all resistance fighters and the order of Belize is relevant, but it's specifically an award for foreigners. It's absurd to claim that "Texas Sports Hall of Fame" or a drinks company's basketball awards are in the same category as national awards. It's not obvious that category policy should be decided by Emperor Akihito, even if the clutter on Emperor Akihito were actually a problem (which it's not, really... on my set-up, half the category clutter is "Hidden categories", none of which do anything helpful for me, but I deal). And if it is a problem, then it's not going to be resolved only by deleting the six categories that have been nominated so far; it's going to require the deletion of around twenty to really make a dent, and in that case then it should be done as a group nomination, as I have said. Furius (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not one WP:OCAWARD for government awards and a different WP:OCAWARD for private awards. You claimed honours from English speaking countries were not being nominated so I provided examples. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As has already been stated, these are not "proper" honours. Please compare like with like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not one WP:OCAWARD for "proper" honours and a different WP:OCAWARD for "improper (?)" honours. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2021 (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 Star of Romania

 * 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) 03:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of the star of romania
 * grand crosses of the order of the star of romania
 * grand officers of the order of the star of romania
 * commanders of the order of the star of romania
 * officers of the order of the star of romania‎
 * knights of the order of the star of romania
 * first class of the order of the star of romania
 * Nominator's rationale: Romanian state award sometimes mentioned with other awards in an awards section, or sometimes not mentioned at all in biographies. Not at all defining for Otto von Bismarck, Nicholas II of Russia, Yıldırım Akbulut, Frederick III, Kurt Beck, Stefan Hell, Ilhan Aliyev, Joachim Gauck, Alberto Fujimori, Hans Globke, Dan Nica, Ioan A. Bassarabescu, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not defining to the actual recipients. Diplomatic souvenirs are classic WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Order of the Star of Romania is an important and notable award, at least in the Romanian context. It surely is a defining characteristic for most recipients of the award, and it deserves a category by itself. Turgidson (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note The category contents are now listified in the main article, Order of the Star of Romania, so no information is lost. - 01:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be awarded almost exclusively to foreign heads of state (especially since 1998 restoration). Furius (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC) (revise to: Keep per comments below; clearly this is defining for the Romanian awardees and they are not as few as I believed. If the categorisation can cope with Margrethe II of Denmark being in the Order of the garter, than it can cope with this award being given to foreign heads of state and to actual honorees Furius (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC))
 * Comment: That's mostly true for the foreign recipients of the award (basically all in the highest ranks), but evidently not true for the domestic recipients. Looking at the list of domestic awards from 1999 to 2013 for the top rank (Grand Crosses), only two were Prime Ministers (one of those awards was later revoked). The others are artists (Radu Beligan), directors (Andrei Serban, Lucian Pintilie), writers, academics, religious, military, or civic figures, etc. This becomes even more pronounced if one looks at the other ranks, or at the older awards. Turgidson (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was working from the list added to the English wiki article, but comparing the number of domestic vs foreign awardees in the article you just linked sort of reaffirms the sense that it is mostly awarded to foreign dignitaries for whom it is non-defining. I don't know how one deals with a category that is defining for some but not for others... Furius (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, as I said, this is only the case for the most prestigious classes of the order, which tend to be ceremonial for foreign recipients. If one looks down the line, say, at Category:Officers of the Order of the Star of Romania‎, out of 36 recipients listed there, I can detect only 2 not born in Romania or thereabouts: Jan Karcz, a Polish Colonel who perished at the Birkenau concentration camp, and Raoul Magrin-Vernerey, a French Foreign Legion officer; the rest are mostly Romanian officers, though some are civilians. The same pattern holds for the 42 recipients listed under Category:Knights of the Order of the Star of Romania‎ of the foreign ones, I can only detect Colin Robert Ballard, a Scottish officer in WWI, Pierre de Coubertin of Olympic Games fame, Samuel C. Cumming and  Thomas Hunton, officers in WWII, and Richard W. O'Neill, who served in the US Army in WWI. I would argue that hardly any of these awardees can be characterized as foreign dignitaries. And, for Sergeant O'Neill at least, the award is prominently displayed in that article, with the mention: "Ordinul Steaua României with swords with the ribbon of the Military Virtue Medal (to denote bravery in action) degree of Knight (Romania)", with inline citation to a book reference. I would argue that that makes it a defining characteristic in this case -- not on the same level as the Medal of Honor that he received for his actions, of course, but a notable distinction, nevertheless. Turgidson (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One clearly keeps it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OCAWARD is looking for an award to be defining to a large majority of the notable recipients. Even if, hypothetically, this award is defining to non-notable people, that doesn't change our category discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused: does this mean that Radu Beligan, Andrei Serban, Lucian Pintilie, Jan Karcz, Raoul Magrin-Vernerey, Colin Robert Ballard, Pierre de Coubertin, Samuel C. Cumming, Thomas Hunton, and Richard W. O'Neill (the awardees that I mentioned specifically in my previous comments) are non-notable recipients? If so, why would they have a Wikipedia page, to start with? Turgidson (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that there are no notable domestic recipients. Rather, the notable recipients tend to be foreign which is the actual category contents we have before us today. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 42 individuals in the "knights" class with articles on English wiki, 93 on Romanian wiki (see Categorie:Cavaler al Ordinului Steaua României), all presumably notable given that they have articles, so I don't think this washes. Furius (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And 37 of the 42 (88%) are Romanians... — Biruitorul Talk 18:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While we agree that foreign recipients are not defined by diplomatic souvenirs, domestic recipients still need to be defined by the award under WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Insofar as any award can define someone, the receipt of a nation’s highest and oldest civilian honor would seem to be defining. — Biruitorul Talk 19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, with limitations. It is, after all, the highest award handed out by the Romanian state, is highlighted in recipients’ biographies, is the subject of controversy (even lawsuits) when withdrawn, has a storied history going back practically to the moment of Romania’s independence. So it absolutely is a defining characteristic.
 * Having said that, “delete” voters do raise a valid point: foreign recipients seem to receive it as a routine courtesy rather than anything of deeper significance. The solution is simply to define the category as covering only Romanian recipients, perhaps including foreign ones on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, that’s a debate for the normal editing process, not a matter for deletion. — Biruitorul Talk 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:OCAWARD and non-defining for the recipients, see WP:CATDEF. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Does "the recipients" in this context mean "all recipients", "most recipients", "a majority of recipients", "some recipients", or "a few recipients"? I gave a whole bunch of explicit examples in my comments above that I submit definitely rule out the "all recipients" interpretation. I'll readily concede that this award is non-defining for "some recipients", but aren't they all, in some sense? So I presume the only remaining debate should be whether "some" means "most" or "a few" for the Order of the Star of Romania (the foremost award for this country, as has been mentioned above). Based on the discussion so far, and the preponderance of the concrete evidence offered, I'll go with non-defining for "a few" or "some", but definitely not a majority, or most, or all of the recipients. Turgidson (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OCAWARD is very clear about that: A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, sure. But that still begs the question: how does one decide that for the "large majority" of the awardees the award is not a defining characteristic? I argued at length that that does not seem to be the case in this instance, by giving all sorts of examples. What is the evidence to the contrary? It's an honest question. Turgidson (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article Radu Beligan, your very first example, does not mention the award in the lead but rather in the very last line. You might argue that the wp article is a very poor representation of reliable sources in this respect, feel free to do so, but generally awards are either given to people who are notable for much better reasons than the award, or given to people who are not notable enough to have a wp article at all. In either case it is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2021 (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:Buddhists of Lord Edward's crusade

 * 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) 01:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Buddhists of Lord Edward's crusade to Category:Lord Edward's crusade
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support merge per nom, no potential for expansion (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge -- The one article is about a ruler with whom Lord Edward had diplomatic relations. He did not actually participate in the crusade.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2021 (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:Order of the Oak Crown recipients

 * 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) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting order of the oak crown recipients
 * grand crosses of the order of the oak crown‎
 * grand officers of the order of the oak crown
 * commanders of the order of the oak crown‎
 * officers of the order of the oak crown‎
 * knights of the order of the oak crown‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Luxembourgish state award usually mentioned in a list of awards, if at all. Not at all defining for Xavier Bettel, Otto von Bismarck, Charles XV, Nursultan Nazarbayev, Dolf Joekes, Henk Vonhoff, Cornelis Kruseman, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike some others, this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not defining to the vast majority of articles. Clicking through the articles, it usually gets mentioned in passing. Many participants seemed to receive it semi-automatically based on their rank/title/position. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note All the category contents are now listified in the main article, Order of the Oak Crown, for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the Romanian award above, it only appears that this is an award primarily given to foreign dignitaries because of our poor coverage of people from Luxembourg; the Luxembourgish category for knights of the order (Kategorie:Chevalier de l'ordre de la couronne de chêne) contains 137 people with articles. Furius (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This nomination isn't based on WP:SMALLCAT and, while the nom lists foreign recipients, there are plenty of domestic ones in these English categories.. In any case, the articles in Luxembourgish Wikipedia don't treat this award as defining according to Google translate (1, 2, 3). - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2021 (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:Pseudophysics

 * 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 to Category:Pseudoscience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pseudophysics to Category:Pseudoscientific physics
 * Nominator's rationale: The former main article was moved to Pseudoscience (physics), then redirected to Pseudoscience as an apparently made-up neologism. That article is now at AfD: Articles for deletion/Pseudoscience (physics). The proposed name also matches the subcategory Category:Pseudoscientific physicists. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * REname or rather merge but to Category:Pseudoscience to match what has happened to the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Pseudoscience per above, Pseudophysics is currently a redirect. Brandmeistertalk  20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename somehow rather than merge, it is helpful to keep physics-related articles together. An alternative target for renaming could be Category:Pseudoscience (physics-related). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * UpMerge to Category:Pseudoscience. After an AfD, and RfD, a restore, and a followup AfD, Pseudoscience (physics), now redirects to Pseudoscience, so there's no longer a source article for this. - jc37 12:36, 26 May 2021 (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 Brilliant Star of Zanzibar
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the order of the brilliant star of zanzibar
 * Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award. Generally mentioned in a list of awards if at all. Not remotely defining to individuals such as Aga Khan IV, Otto von Bismarck, or Isma'il Pasha. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike some others, this was a state honour awarded to people who had rendered service to the state. That makes it defining. The fact it was given to some others is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "this is a state honour awarded to people who have rendered service to the state. That makes it defining" is circular reasoning. There's no reason why a state honor awarded for merit would be inherently defining; that is determined by how sources treat it. See WP:NONDEF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard in WP:OCAWARD is "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients". State honours are subject to that editing guideline just like private awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And it seems obvious that a state honour would be defining for most of the citizens of that state who were awarded it! It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what is defining to an individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Every CFD discussion of a disease, award, occupation, political title, or other biography category is Wikipedia editors deciding what is defining to an individual. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Given as a diplomatic award or to high ranking people in Zanzibar. Not defining to either group. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I previously listified all the category contents into the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (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:Films directed by Pratap K. Pothen
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Pratap K. Pothen to Category:Films directed by Pratap Pothen
 * Nominator's rationale: The article is Pratap Pothen <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  03:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (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.