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, but the category can be re-created after deletion and populated appropriately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 5

• Delete Category:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners
• Nominator's rationale I have to admit I am not convinced that either Screen Actors Guild or Golden Globe Awards make the winner notable. Especially after seeing Liza Minelli who is in 9 award categories, I know we have to start lopping off these awards. However, I really do not feel up to nominating all 29 Golden Globe Award categories. However, this category is especially egregious because it is not won by individuals, but by a group of individuals. Thus, if we had artilces on the ensemble involved, then we could put them there, but the individual articles really do not belong. What next, will we created a category for Category:Golden Rasperry Award for Worst film couple or ensemble and add our possible article on Bennifer to it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Question. If this is for an ensemble why are the individuals who comprised one or more ensembles listed? They are not what the award was for but rather part of a group. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I really have no clue. I was hoping someone else would give an answer. My best guess is that it is because people figured there was a need to tag some article for winning these awards. Generally I would say awards for organizations and groups are even less likely to be truly notable to the designated entity than awards for individuals. If someone is named teacher of the year for the state of California, that is a much bigger honor, assuming there is only one, than school of the year. Especially since if someone was so designated in 1940, we would assume they were probably a good teacher for most of their career. If a school was so designated in 1940, it might be the lowest performing school in California today. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Not sure that's a helpful analogy. Individuals have won awards for a single stellar performance and then done nothing else of note, but they are still defined by that moment of greatness. Similarly, If a school was once at the top of the field, it is defined by that achievement, even if it fails later. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

If a school was top of its field in 1970, but is bottom of its field today, I don't think anyone would care much it lead the field 40 years ago. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 22:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The creator of this category was notified of this CfD back on the 16th of September. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Both the Golden Globes and Screen Actor Guild Awards are used in advertizing for films and TV shows both before and after the awards ceremonies. People pay attention to them as the have become indicators of who will win Oscars or Emmys - though this is not foolproof. This specific award is the SAG version of the Golden Globe Award for "Best Television Drama" and Emmy Award for "Best Drama". The reason that it goes to multiple people is because the SAG awards are solely for, and presented to, actors. The Globe and Emmy Awards are presented to the producers of the winning show and, it should be noted, that those usually go to more than one person as well. It is certainly important to the winners as it justifies their agents asking for more money in the next contract negotiations. It can also cause a show to be renewed that was in danger of cancellation. One can only wish (and I certainly do) that the same was true for any teacher that wins an award anywhere - they deserve it. MarnetteD | Talk 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

As I have thought more about this I think we should Keep but restrict its placement We should only add the cat to the article for the show that wins the award. We don't place the cat for the Golden Globe or Emmy awards for Best Drama on the pages for the individual producers. Thus, we shouldn't add it to the page for the actors in a given show. This also fits in with the policy where we dont do cats like "CSI actors" MarnetteD | Talk 00:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Aside from the Oscars, the SAG awards are the most important award for actors. They can not be compared to the Golden Globes or "Razzies". I'd argue that for television actors, the SAG awards are more prestigious than the Emmys. These are awards, for acting voted upon by the acting community. Do you have similar thoughts about the Director's Guild Award, the most respected award for directors?

My only question about this is the role of an Ensemble award in categorizing individuals who happen to be part of a cast. The Ensemble award is among the most coveted but I think that only Television Series should be placed in this category, not individuals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete and recreate. As Marnette and others have pointed out, this category should be applied only to the show rather than to the actors. However, it currently includes only actors, so the easiest way to purge it is to delete it.
  Note that the nominator's rationale is flawed. The test is not whether the award "make the winner notable", but whether it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It this case, it is clearly a defining characteristic of the show that its cast won the award, but less so of the individual actors who comprise that cast. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Maybe Category:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners should be tagged with a notice and included in this proposal, too. It looks like a similar situation in this category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and start again -- This category is concerned with Ensembles. We should therefore be categorising named ensembles in it, not the individuals who make up that ensemble. We certainly need somehow to find a shorter name for it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

A note to those who mention delete and start again. There are only 140 articles which have the cat at the moment. As a Wikignome I would be happy to go through and remove them. It would only take a day or two at the most. That way we could also add it to the shows that have won the award without having to wait for a bot to be programmed and then unprogrammed. If that is not what you would like then no problem I just thought I would make the offer. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Marnette, that's a very kind offer. But the bot is already programmed and runs for most of the day, so all that is required to list the category at WP:CFD/W. It takes only a few seconds for the bot to empty the category, so I don't see how doing the same thing manually would be a good use of your time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. It is good to know that it can be handled so easily. Now would it be possible to let us know when the bot is finished. Then we can start to add the cat to the article for the shows which have won the award. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 29. Dana boomer ( talk) 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Anatolia Beyliks architecture to Category:Architecture of the Anatolian beyliks

Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article on the Anatolian beyliks as well as a clearer name. Constantine ✍ 17:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. "FOOian architecture" or "FOO architecture" is the standard across almost all categories for describing architecture of a particular place. Cf. Category:Ottoman architecture. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support -- I did not find it at all easy to work out what this is about. I gather that Anatolia after the end of Byzantine rule broke up into a considerable number of independent states each ruled by beys. The state was a beylik (lordship). This is a period between the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires. Since we do not have a single polity for medieval Anatolia, it is convenient to deal with the beyliks together. However, beylik seems to be a noun, for which there is no obvious adjective. Accordingly the proposed form is correct. If I am wrong, it should be renamed to "beyliks", the correct capitalisation. I got annual categories for Turkey changed to Ottoman Empire or Byzantine Empire, according to period, but did not tackle those for Medieval Turkey. It would seem that "the Anatolian beyliks" is the appropriate target. Is that agreed? The alternative might be to rename to Category:Turkish architecture in medieval Anatolia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • beylik seems to be a noun, for which there is no obvious adjective. Accordingly the proposed form is correct. No, it's not, at least not in this scheme of WP categorization. If you look at Category:Architecture by country, the form is "FOOian architecture", and when there is no obvious or non-ambiguous adjective, "FOO architecture"—as with Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina architecture or Category:Dominican Republic architecture. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Good Ol'factory. The standard convention for architecture categories is Foo(ian) architecture, and I find the proposed name to be no more or less clear than the current one. On the matter of capitalization, it appears that the names of architectural styles and periods generally are capitalized. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 22:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge Category:Canadian actors of Finnish descent to Category:Actors of Finnish descent and Category:Canadian people of Finnish descent.
• Nominator's rationale To the extent that Actors of Finnish descent are a distinct group, with clear history, this is a result of their participation in the largely international field of acting. They will be involved in British, American and Canadian productions, and their joint history will be seen in treatment in the same way in all these places. Actors of Finnish descent will be treated as a group throughout, without much regard to where they initially came from. It really does not make sense to split them by specific nationality and ethnicity in an acting context. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:CATEGRS; no reliable sources show that Canadian actors of Finnish descent act differently than those of non-Finnish descent. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge WP:OC#TRIVIA. I see no evidence that being of Finnish descent has relevance to an acting career in Canada, so this categ fails WP:OC#TRIVIA. It is an intersection of unrelated attributes, and those attributes should be categorised separately. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. I cannot see how theri ancestry is likely to have any effect on the course of their career, unless they possibly speak Finnish. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:SC Telstar players; this appears to be uncontroversial ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Stormvogels Telstar players - Category:Telstar (football club) players
  

Nominator's rationale: These category are the same. Are for the players of the same team SC Telstar. Xaris333 ( talk) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge both to Category:SC Telstar players to match the article SC Telstar. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (content merged to Category:List-Class Canada-related articles). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Canada lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category

1. has no article attached
2. has a single subcategory
3. is a non-standard-named duplicate of Category:List-Class_Canada-related_articles.

Valmoer ( talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:List-Class Canada-related articles -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 05:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ( NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Eponymous television programs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I believe that we abandoned categorization of this type because it categorizes things by a characteristic of its name rather than some other feature. A bunch of these were deleted in the recent past, and this is similar to Television series with stars' names in the title, which was deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - not defining of the shows in question. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete We categorize things by what they are, not properties of their name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I cannot see that this serves any useful purpose. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MarnetteD | Talk 17:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Core issues in ethics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Sheer WP:OR. What constitutes a "core" issue of ethics? How are addiction, honor, and secrecy related? Upmerge some content possibly to relevant parent cats, I guess but delete this. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question. Have you notified WP:PHILO? This discussion needs input from those with more specialist knowledge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Response No. For what it's worth, I have a degree in philosophy. It doesn't take a specialist to see that this is a haphazard—almost random—assemblage of articles and categories without any particular inclusion criteria. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl I posted a notice on that WikiProject Talk Page. I'd like to hear from people working on Ethics articles whether this categorization makes sense to them. Perhaps a rename is in order. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Rename - I'm against deleting it, but I would support renaming it to Category:Issues in ethics. It has grown beyond the core issues, and what is and is not a "core" issue is debateable. Greg Bard ( talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete pure WP:OR, doesn't every social concern, in someone's opinion, have ethical issues? I notice that opposites are both categorized in this cat. So if X and not-X can fit in; it's fairly not defining for either X or not-X and likely anything else. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unless there was a universally agree on, synopsis of "core" issues in ethnics, than this will inevitably push some point-of-view. This is not a term that has a set number of things that all can agree on. It is just plain a bad name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- What subjects are or are not "core" ones is clearly a POV issue. In principle, I would vote to merge with Category:Ethics, but I suspect that would be destructive, as my target is the head of a well-developed tree. However, I suppose that some one should check that all the articles are somewhere in that tree. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Unspecified gender Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Note: all participants in the previous discussion have been notified of this discussion.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was nominated once previously as part of a mass nomination of the entire Wikipedians by gender tree. They were mass kept but I believe this one should be considered separately. The category appears to be for Wikipedians who have not yet declared a particular gender as part of their Wiki-identity. My initial response to this is "so what"? Gender is absolutely a defining characteristic of a person. "I haven't said on Wikipedia yet what gender I identify as" is not. This does not assist in collaboration or project building. It is inherently transitory. And considering that randomly clicking on several of the user pages reveals that many of the members of the category specify a gender on their user pages, it's likely going to perpetually miscategorize people, something which should be avoided. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 04:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete How is this supposed to help build an encyclopedia? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep as this was JUST discussed and decided to be kept. I would agree that having three such categories is redundant and that Category:Androgynous Wikipedians and Category:Transgender Wikipedians should be merged into Category:Unspecified gender Wikipedians. The reasons for keeping this type of category are simple. These categories are used for demographic information about "who edits Wikipedia" which is very important information when designing WikiProjects and other programs to encourage new editors. Not to mention these categories help form social bonds between members in the community. Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28#Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 5#Category:Female Wikipedians, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. A specific declaration by an editor they they identify as androgynous is a very different thing from no statement on gender. Similarly, a declaration of transgender status is not a declaration of no gender. Technical 13 wants to take two categories which might serve some purpose (because they do have some positive meaning) and merge them into a pointless category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
    • There was only one previous discussion which covered this particular category, as part of a group nomination, on August 28 I think. Also, the idea that androgynous or transgender is the same as "Unspecified gender" is ridiculous on the face of it.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Categorising Wikipedians by gender is indeed helpful for collaboration, and it is statistically useful to be able to identify those who have not declared a gender. However, that is achieved simply by excluding those who ave declared; it doe snot require a specific statement.
  This category merely includes those who have chosen to say explicitly that they are not telling, and I can see no useful collaborative purpose for that subset. Are we also going to have categories who choose to say that they won't reveal their nationality, politics, marital status, sexuality, musical tastes, or whatever? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  BrownHairedGirl, IF 701 was even remotely close to 47,411,203 I would be inclined to agree with you... Let's make a little table to compare (I like tables):

That is quite a difference there. This category is populated by multiple user-based templates (of which some automatically detect based on preference unless told not to, so they are not declaring that they are not telling, they just haven't defined it yet. Without this category, the numbers become statistically unusable. Technical 13 ( talk) 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

My point entirely. This is indeed statistically unusable. What exactly is the collaborative (or any other) purpose of having about 20 million users who have not declared their gender, and keeping a category of 163 of them? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Harmless. Remember that this is a category for Wikipedians who choose to indicate that they are not specifying their gender. This is completely different from claiming androgyny, or claiming transgender status. It is a potentially useful category for those who are in it to avoid being labeled by gender, or to avoid having assumptions made about their gender. bd2412 T 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Editors shouldn't assume or label anyone's gender unless they have specified it. The category adds nothing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep per Technical 13. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 14:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• delete We don't want to have "wikipedians who prefer to not reveal their sexuality" or "wikipedians who don't identify with any particular ethnicity" or "Wikipedians who'd rather not share what religion they are" do we? This particular category is useless - if you don't want to identify your gender, well, join the club, there are millions in that non-category. I can't see what possible good this category can have, and it's in any case NOT DEFINING for anyone in it.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• As this was discussed less than one month previously I previously closed this discussion on the basis that this was a repeat nomination and there was insufficient time in between nominations to allow for consensus to change. The previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28#Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats had no support for the deletion of this category and there was no support or discussion about this category being considered individually, so I'm at a complete loss as to why the nominator would consider an individual nomination. For the sake of a peaceful life, I've permitted Obi to re-open the discussion but my opinion that this nomination is unnecessary, premature and arguably an abuse of procedure is unchanged. It further appears I was badgered into re-opening of the CfD purely so Obi could !vote for deletion, which I find rather deceitful. Nick ( talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Nick, there were two !votes to delete before you closed the discussion. That fact alone should have shown you the merits of the observation on your talk page that a focus on this individual category allowed editors to respond differently than they did to the group nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I should have informed Nick that I was in the delete camp and I'm sorry about that, but my main intent was not just to get my !vote in, but to give this category a proper hearing - it had 2 delete votes and was closed after 24 hours. Sometimes categories like this can get lost in larger group nominations, and people just will vote !keep if there are obvious keeps without worrying about the edge cases, so I think an individual nom is correct and reasonable here.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree that an individual nomination might be worthwhile, but some of those taking part in the previous discussion did consider the individual categories and all were free to ask for one or more of those categories to be deleted in isolation, although whether all those commenting would have known that, we don't know. I'd have preferred a procedural nomination happened in a few weeks and without any statement from the nominator, as is normal for such nominations. Nick ( talk) 18:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I appreciate that this nomination is being allowed to proceed, although I don't understand why I wasn't notified that it was re-opened. I was not a part of any previous discussion of this category. I stumbled across the category in the course of another CFD discussion. When I read the first nomination, I interpreted it as a consensus based on all of the nominated categories as a whole, the question being whether the Wikipedians by gender tree was appropriate categorization as a whole. That question is not at issue here. All that's at issue here is whether or not a category for editors who have not yet stated a gender on Wikipedia is appropriate.

I do not appreciate the extreme negativity and assumption of bad faith on the part of Nick, who initially closed this with vague accusations of collusion against me and re-opened it with specific accusations of abuse against me and bullying against Obi. If Nick can't conduct CFD business without insults and accusations then maybe he shouldn't be conducting it at all. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 05:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Both of you, please drop the stick. Nick's closure wasn't the best call ever, and he has stepped back from it, albeit with less AGF than would be helpful. Jerry Pepsi, it was was procedurally dubious for you to open a new nomination so soon after the closure of the previous one. You made a good case for having a separate discussion, and did mention the previous one, but you didn't link to it and appear not have notified participants in the previous discussion. I'm sure that was an unintended oversight, but it may not have appeared that way. So please just count it all as a learning experience, and let it go. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - "I'm not telling you what my gender is" (which is what this category is) is clearly a not-based category, and should be deleted as such (see Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete We do not do not categories in almost all cases. Do we have Category:Wikipedias in the English Wikipedia project for whom English is not a mother tongue for example? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle, Class I
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle, Class II
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle, Class III
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle, Class IV

Nominator's rationale: People should be categorized by what they are notable for - usually their occupation (e.g. Category:Estonian military personnel), rather than by what awards they have received - see WP:OC#AWARD. Some of the articles in these categories (e.g. Juhan Aavik) don't even mention the award and where it is mentioned in an article it's usually in a list of awards received (i.e. not in the lead) - indicating that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This should _not_ be listified as (if a list is needed in Wikipedia) it would be better to create it from the official list (see the EL on the Order_of_the_Cross_of_the_Eagle article) than from the current category contents. Note: Although awards granted by governments are often more important than awards granted by other organizations (e.g. companies) that does not mean that every government award is of such importance that it overrides normal categorization guidelines. DexDor ( talk) 02:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a very well reasoned set of reasons to delete the category. The issue of not appearing in the lead would apply to many of the categories I nominated back on September 11th. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Technical consensus ? (around HIDDENCAT ?). But, either as a first move if listififying or if keeping them finally as useful technical tool, we need to keep them as a basis anyway, but some don't want to see all those categories at the bottom of pages. So, how about making the orders categories in general compulsory hiddencats by consensus ( Wikipedia:HIDDENCAT), only visible if you check "see hiddencat" in your profile. One good mean is to connect a "hidden cat sign" within a "warning" element added inside the Template:Medal category which is yet settled in a lot of orders categories (but not all). The warning element should advertise this profile checking. But wouldn't it crowd "hiddencat" ? is it OK ? Mimich ( talk) 06:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Hiddencat is used only for administration categories. These are not administration categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Object - retain Before this goes ahead, the rationale must be discussed by the ODM (Orders, decorations and medals) project, where there are committed members. The categorising of ODM recipients is well established - is it intended to delete all such categories? And perhaps lose useful lists of recipients. At present, the view has been to categorise awards for bravery, merit or recognition, but not general "campaign" type awards, so recipients of the Victoria Cross (UK), Legion of Honour (France), Order of Suverov (USSR), etc are categorised but the recipients of long service medals, campaign medals and commemorative medals aren't. The quoted WP:OC#AWARD doesn't, in any case, refer to decorations or orders and I would not equate an honorary degree to an award for an act of bravery, chivalric order, etc. How is "defining characteristic" defined? I would also challenge the use of lists rather than categories, since categories are easier to maintain and more likely to be complete. I'll put a sign post to here with activists - please hold fire for the time being. Folks at 137 ( talk) 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. No, WP:ODM doesn't WP:OWN the category, and more than it owns any of the other pages within its scope.
    It would be great if more ODM project members participated in this discussion, because many of them many bring expertise in the topic ... but XFDs are a community-wide process. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Wasn't arguing ownership - merely for a wider range of views. It may well be that I'm out of step with most ODM contributors. Not sure why this is a "speedy" deletion. Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The proposal that CFD be put on hold until ODM had pronounced looked very like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Glad we agree on the need for wider input here.

This is not a speedy deletion. Speedy deletions have no prior discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This medal appears to have been widely issued, and I don't see any evidence that its receipt is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an individual. Sure, categories are appropriate for the higher awards for bravery, but not for participation in a campaign or being part of a particular era. If we want to categorise by campaign or by era, we should do so directly rather than by using a medal as proxy. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle is purely a campaign award, issued "with the rations", then I won't object in this instance (as I've already implied). However, the proposal is phrased in such a way that it could be read as being universal. I'm relieved to have some support for the use of categories. For example, there are nearly 1,000 Victoria Cross recipients on wiki: a separate list article would be less easy to maintain and probably less useful and flexible. Similar issues apply to other major awards. Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed. However, the Victoria Cross and the Iron Cross have not been nominated here. If they are ever nominated, the objections will be ferocious, including mine. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Considering that the Bronze Star award category survived CfD, I think any discussion about the Victoria Cross completely misses the mark. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Lists are actually easier to sort, and they are easier to regulate. The amount of information one gets from a well developed list is much grater than that from a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Good point. It's horses for courses. Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. It appears that there are some editors who have an (off-wiki) list of people who are recipients of a particular award (e.g. see sequences of edits like [1]) and want to create a "list" of those recipients in Wikipedia, but (possibly because it's so easy to create categories and add them to existing articles) instead of creating a list article (or adding a list to the article about the award) they use the category system - even if that means adding the category tag to articles that don't mention the award (e.g. [2]) so clearly isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the subject. The "list" (i.e. category) produced by this is much less useful than an actual list article as it doesn't have references, can't be sorted by date etc, can't contain extra info about each person, doesn't include people who don't have a WP article, can't be watchlisted for changes to the list etc. For readers of the encyclopedia a list article is much more useful than a category. Trying to create a "list" in this way (for awards other than the highest awards such as the VC) also creates category clutter on articles (e.g. Wesley_Clark). DexDor ( talk) 05:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This is a national award given to its citizens for merit. We have recently had discussions on awards made by one state to heads of government or of state, where we were getting significant clutter from the categorisation of foreign decorations, uusally granted for diplomatic reasons. This is very different from a state honouring its own citizens. These are not minor awards. They are also evidence that the state regards the recipients as notable, which will assist on AFD challenges. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

There are currently over 300 WP articles categorized as recipients of Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana (an order that's been established for less than 20 years) and there may be other people with that award who aren't in the category. For a country of approx 1 million people that's a lot more often than, for example, VCs (3 in the last 20 years for a UK population of 63M). The categories under discussion here are for recipients of an order that is two levels lower than the Terra Mariana. I'm not saying that the Eagle award is minor - it may be highly significant to some of its recipients (and to some Estonian ODM enthusiasts) and having received it is sufficiently important that it can (should?) be mentioned in a recipients article (although it often isn't) unlike, for example, having a driving licence (is that a national award given for merit ?). What I am saying is that it's not of such exceptional significance that normal categorization rules (categorize by what makes the person notable) don't apply. It' s likely that some/many/most of the recipients of this award aren't sufficiently notable for a WP article (to ever be written about them) - unlike recipients of VCs, Nobel Prizes etc. I agree that royalty etc giving each other ODMs (perhaps the equivalent of plebs "liking" each other on Facebook) causes worse category clutter, but I'm pretty sure that anyone taking those awards recipients categories to CFD would be told that they needed to start by deleting lower awards - like the one covered by this CFD. DexDor ( talk) 19:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm interested by the "categorize by what makes the person notable" criterion. Consider Sophus Baagoe (or many similar examples) and Walther von Brauchitsch, both recipients of the Knights Cross. Baagoe's award arguably "defines" him, otherwise he was one of many successful military pilots: von Brauchitsch's award doesn't - he is notable as a field marshall and soldier of importance. Should the category "Recipients of the Knights Cross" include one and not the other? (This is unlikely to be resolved here - please see my comment below.) Folks at 137 ( talk) 21:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment It seems to me that there are several points under debate here:

1) Should Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle be categorised?

2) Should any odm recipients be categorised, or should they be in list articles?

3) If recipients of some odms may be categorised, by what criteria should they be selected?

4) The validity of the guideline WP:OC#AWARD.

Some of the points raised above by DexDor & others could be challenged and there may be other points to raise. It does seem to me that the debate has moved (mea culpa) to points 2 & 3, which have wider implications than the proposal itself and which deserve proper consideration. Folks at 137 ( talk) 21:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Recipients of discretionary national awards should always be categorised as such. This has always been our practice and there's no need to change it now. Particularly not piecemeal as editors are attempting to do here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, no, that has never been a policy. No where does the guideline on categorizing by awards say "if the award is for a discretionary, national award, we should keep the category". Considering we have recently deleted some US military awards categories that fit the "discretionary, national award" criteria, this rule does not make sense. Just because an award is given out by a nation does not mean it is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't say it was a policy. I said it was a practice. And I completely disagree with your comments. The only US military awards that have been deleted as far as I know are those which are so minor as to virtually be given out as a matter of course and therefore not truly discretionary. Even the Bronze Star was saved, a medal so ubiquitous that would it not even be a medal in many countries (note that the closest British equivalent, for instance, the Mention in Dispatches, is not categorised). The award under discussion certainly does not fall into that category. So if we deleted this category (and note that I don't think we should, systemic bias or otherwise) we would effectively in a situation where very minor US awards are categorised, but considerably higher awards from other countries aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This is mainly in reply to User:Folks at 137 who asks some pertinant questions above. The aim of categorization is to group articles about similar topics (that's paraphrased from the 1st sentence of WP:OC). In the case of people that means mainly grouping by what makes them notable - usually what they did (e.g. their occupation), E.g. Baagoe in Category:German World War II flying aces and von Brauchitsch in Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany etc. Everyone who has a WP article should have at least one reason for notability.

IMO, we should only have an award recipients category where several conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the award is of such importance that for all its recipients it could be appropriate to mention the award in the lead of the recipient's article (see WP:DEFINING). Nobel Prizes and VCs clearly meet this; many awards (including this Estonian Eagle award) don't. The Knight's Cross probably passes this test - it would not be unreasonable to mention von Brauchitsch's Knight's Cross in an expanded lead of his article.

In reply to the question "Should the category ... include one and not the other?" the answer is no; every article that meets a category's inclusion criteria should be in it, but if (in an editor's opinion) that means that the category includes articles for which it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic then there's something wrong with the category - its inclusion criteria should be made more restrictive or it should be brought to CFD. DexDor ( talk) 05:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Comment

Firstly, many thanks to DexDor for taking the time to answer my points. It's good to understand the rationale and find that there is more than a "salami-slice" approach to this clean-up/rationalisation.

Secondly, WP is dynamic - methods, requirements change; what was appropriate once, may need reconsideration. In my former working life this would be a "living document". I think that this is now true of categories, and usage (although against current guidelines) should affect guidelines. Specifically, categories are now used as a way of listing articles with like characteristics - a sort of poor-man's list. List articles are not a perfect method; they are relatively long-winded to set-up and maintain; although they can give more information, this in itself requires effort and expertise and attention to formatting, etc and resistance to "scope-creep"; the existence of a relevant list is not always clear to casual readers (it would be interesting to know their usage stats). The issue of "over-categorisation" needs attention; maybe there's ways of automatically generating simple lists from selected categories. All this I think requires proper consideration in a more strategic/general way than at present (IMO). As they say - "be bold".

Thirdly, where a list is accepted as a proper approach, I suggest that the category is not deleted until the list is established. Otherwise, the identification of relevant articles would have to repeated. Also, someone who proposes this as a solution should be prepared to implement it.

There are more points that deserve discussion (eg, how to judge importance; subjectivity; etc), but this, as I've said, is going way off topic for this specific award. Anyone wanna suggest a suitable forum?

Regards Folks at 137 ( talk) 21:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment

1. Is anyone suggesting that the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle is not notable? If so, why do we have an article on this decoration?
2. Are any of the people who have articles in above mentioned categories not notable? If so, why do they have an article here?
3. Most military orders are awarded for merit and/or bravery. In any case, it is not necessarily what these people are notable for, but it is the fact, that their merit/bravery has been recognized, that IMO justifies mentioning these decorations.
4. If I am not mistaken, the purpose of these categories, like many others similar to them, is to find people who share certain criteria. With less than 100 articles in all the five categories, one might consider one category to be enough.
5. We should not forget that we are dealing with a sovereign state here. This order ranks the same as the Bronze Star - and nobody nominated that category for deletion yet.

ÄDA - DÄP VA ( talk) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The criteria for creating award categories is way below "is it notable". If that was the criteria we would have way more award categories. I also do not think "is it given out by a sovereign state" is a good way to go. Lastly, the linked category is very new, and up until now was in no categories. I am not sure what is up with it, or how it relates to the other Bronze state category recently considered for deletion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The Bronze Star is the same as Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal and that category was nominated for deletion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply

And survived. Why? Because it's American. Systemic bias anyone? And the higher grades, if not all the grades, of this order clearly rank far higher than the Bronze Star. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't know why it survived, I still think it should have been deleted. Way too many people in that category are above 10 awards, and we need to do something about it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

For an award that minor I happen to agree with you, but not for this one. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Snow tubing areas in Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Snow tubing areas in British Columbia
• Propose deleting Category:Snow tubing areas in Quebec

Nominator's rationale: Many ski resorts offer a range of snow-based activities (e.g. some of alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, tobogganing etc) - the exact mix may vary from year to year. That a ski resort (currently) offers (or has ever offered) snow tubing is not a permanent defining characteristic of the resort. Note: These articles should be in Category:Ski areas and resorts in Canada (those I've checked all are). Note: If this CFD results in deletion a similar nomination should be made for Category:Snow tubing areas in the United States and subcats. DexDor ( talk) 02:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Categorising winter sports resorts by every different type of activity there would lead to horrible category clutter. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We do not need to categorize by all activities doen in a place. Actually though, the nature of Wikipedia is that categories are generally permanent, so if we accepted categories like this we would include places that last did snow tubing 10 years ago, and be less than helpful to people anyway. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is a performace (sport) by performer (resort) type category. WE do not allow venues to be categorised by the concert tours they have been visited by. There may be a subject that needs developing at an article level. Snow tubing redirects to a section of Tubing (recreation). That section says that some ski resorts offer courses on it. It may be that Snow tubing needs to be restored to being a substantive article, which it appears to have been until 2010, adding in a list of resorts where courses are offered. Or should that be trans-wikied to wikivoyage? Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (I checked, and the names are already included in a list in State Security Service (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Convert Category:Targets of the State Security Service (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) to article State Security Service (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing people by which organization(s) targetted them is WP:overcategorization. Note: The current contents of this category are articles about people (and hence are in categories for their occupation etc), they are not articles specifically about the targetting itself. For info: This is currently the only "Targets of..." category. For info: A similar previous CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_26#Category:People_by_organization_that_assassinated_them. DexDor ( talk) 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Being "targeted" by an organization is not really a defining characteristic of people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete next we'll have Category:Targets of NSA snooping and everyone who has lived in the 21st century can be added to it. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- In police states, they tend to have a file on everyone, so that this is certainly not a defining feature of any citizen. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)---- reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.