Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members
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.
Keep all - poorly researched. Just because a category is a child of
Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members does not mean it is only within that category. Example: the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a well established Order which is awarded to many who are not "heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members", there are several ranks and even the senior ranks may be awarded more widely. The proposal affects all rank categories and several related articles. This is way too broad a brush - has it been researched? There may be others in the same situation.
Folks at 137 (
talk)
00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete the parent. As noted by Folks at 137, many of these categories cover decorations given for other purposes as well, and yet presumably they don't all. This makes the parent category useless for navigation: we can't tell what's what. I would support deleting any child categories that can be shown to be awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, because I agree with the nomination statement. To make this parent category useful, we'd have to remove everything that's not awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and the nomination statement would then be correct — but this kind of action would leave the parent category empty and thus cause its deletion, too.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. These are almost without exception not defining for the recipients and also run afoul of the other overcategorization guidelines, such as
WP:OCAWARD. This is the case whether or not the recipient is limited to heads of state and their family members. For these reasons I think that in general that these are an ill-conceived use of the category system. These are the kinds of things that are certainly notable, and should be included in articles about the awards, but they are not defining for recipients. (I think that if deletion is a possibility, it is also important that the categories be listed here as part of the nomination, perhaps in a collapsible table.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep all. The categories may need work to make navigating them easier. Difficulty in navigation is not a reason for deleting them. I've just been looking at the entries in the higher categories to try to figure out who is in them and why they are. Then, when I look at who is in the lesser categories, I wonder why they are not in the higher categories. (I'm referring specifically to the Finnish Orders here). The point is that it's all useful, valuable information that editors have taken a long time to compile. And now some busy body wants to come along and sweep it all away. There's too much wanton vandalism on Wikipedia posing as tidying up and deleting not-noteworthy articles. This is yet just another example.
124.185.54.154 (
talk)
17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)reply
No, there are lots in this category where it is mentioned in the lead. Now, I know these things are a load of old cobblers (look at
Andrzej Ciechanowiecki so it's not just British cobblers) but people really are sometimes defined by such things.
Thincat (
talk)
17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I am actually in the process of checking the use of categories relating to the various Orders of St John. Some biographies have been wrongly categorised, so it will be that the Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John is incomplete and could include more people for whom the award is "defining" (however defined). So please wait a bit before judgement.
Folks at 137 (
talk)
21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It looks as if
Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire is defining for most people in that category. It is nearly always mentioned in the first sentence. It is wholly irrelevant that it is a child of
Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. It is not up to people here to search to see whether any of the categories are defining for any of the people it includes but it is up to the nominator to show that none of the categories are defining for any of the people they include. I am not convinced that due diligence has been shown before making this nomination. This is an unreasonable batch nomination because the child categories do not form a batch from the point of view of whether they are defining for what they include. I have a lot of sympathy with Nyttend's suggestion to consider deleting the parent category. A very poorly considered nomination.
Thincat (
talk)
15:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
General comment Some discussants have suggested deleting the parent category. Although I had deliberately excluded the parent category from the nomination, I'm not opposed to deleting the parent category as well, I had merely excluded it from the nomination in order not to have two different discussions in one nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Not for one moment should my !vote above be considered as supporting deletion of the parent. I simply think that it is not a foolish suggestion.
Thincat (
talk)
16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. Actually I would suggest, just for clarity, that people who desire so will nominate the deletion of the parent category in a separate CfD. After all, the parent category isn't tagged for deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree with that. I suspect that some of the child categories may have been inappropriately included in the parent but that may depend on exactly how the parent is defined.
Thincat (
talk)
16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (perhaps purged) -- The problem with award categories is that they create clutter. That does not mean that we should not have a category of articles. In some cases a category may be appropriate. The problem is that heads of state tend to get given awards by lots of other states for diplomatic reasons. It is thus undesirable to have awards categories on their articles. However if the award is being given by a state or its own citizens (or in a few cases such as Hon GBE and Hon KBE) distinguished non-citizens, it may be appropriate to have them in an award category. Somehow we need to have a rule that excludes honours given for diplomatic reasons.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And to be honest, I don't think
WP:OCAWARD is a helpful guideline. In the first place, it doesn't reflect reality - awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists. Secondly, it is a bit hard to work out what the guideline is saying - it seems the "exceptions" clause is referring to cases where the award is not a defining characteristic - that is, we use categories when either (a) the award is a defining characteristic, or (b) when it is not a defining characteristic, but for whatever reason an exception can be granted. Thirdly, it doesn't give any hint about what the exceptions might be or why they are granted - the examples given are all for non-existent categories. Fourthly, the number of award categories is already far less than the number of extant awards, so the categories are relatively few in number anyway. Fifthly, I think as a community we have for a long time been deeply divided on the issue - there are editors who believe all award categories should be scrapped, and those who believe (virtually) all should exist - and so it is better to leave the issue alone. (See also
Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Awards (again).)
StAnselm (
talk)
11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
StAnselm: In assessing
WP:OCAWARD, it's not very important that "awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists". This is because any user can create a category, and it will continue to exist until there is consensus to delete it. A far more relevant assessment would be what is the usual outcome of CFDs in which award categories are nominated. And the answer to that is that they are usually deleted/listified—overwhelmingly so, in fact.
Good Ol’factory(talk)17:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)reply
WP:NONDEF says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. In this case, with only one person in each of these categories for which the award might be defining, there is not the commonality or consistency that
WP:NONDEF requires. Hence the rationale to delete is fully applicable.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - these categories cause many articles to be in many categories for a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Presumably, this info is already in the text of the articles (with references) and if some editors wish to have the info in a more structured form then isn't that exactly what Wikidata is for ?
DexDor (
talk)
07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete only
Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. This is a mish-mosh of titles and awards for heads of states amd family and even consorts? How about the the family pets too? (Looks over at
Caligula.) Different countries have different political systems, different types of heads of state and the titles are just that, titles, with, in some cases, greatly varying meaning ad/or value. Such things should be subcategorised by the state that these are heads of. If you want a cross-country comparison of such titles, a
List would be far more suitable for use. - jc3701:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Theologians
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.
Nominator's rationale: See proposed definition of theologians category on the category page. As
Category:Theologians is part of the
Category:Occupations tree it is obvious that academic theologians should be classified here. The grey area with classifying "Theologians" is with clergy who wrote pastoral-theological, social-theological, political-theological books/texts/pamphlets that are not of clear academic theological interest. Should they be classified as Theologians or not? With the proposed definition, writing clergy should be classified as Theologians only by exception, but not as a rule. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with people that are in the clergy tree anyway. I'm requesting consensus about this definition.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I note that Austin's book mentioned above gets a page or so discussion in
this PhD thesis. That makes me think he's in the theologian category. "Ordinary" clergy aren't usually notable, anyway - if 17th century divines are notable, it's usually for their (theological) writing.
StAnselm (
talk)
19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks, this is really a very useful comment in order to further clarify the nomination. Because the nomination is not about the writings of clergy, it is about the theological significance of the writings. In this case the writing is merely used as a source for a thesis in (church) history, rather than for a thesis in theology. For a thesis in (church) history just any (clerical) writing from the respective period may be significant, which would not be the case for a thesis in theology.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
That's a fair point. This is a bit off track, but the disambiguation in some of these titles is perhaps a bigger issue. Austin is called a "divine", and the article links to a definition: "clergy whose theological writings have been considered standards for faith, doctrine, worship and spirituality". Are "divines" are a subset of "theologians", then? And if Austin is not a theologian, then it's more important to change the article lead ("was a puritan theologian and divine...") then changing the category. And if he's not actually a divine, then the article title needs to be changed.
StAnselm (
talk)
21:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
You may well be right, though I haven't touched the divines because the definition ("... have been considered...") is not quite clear on whether there is perhaps a fixed list of divines. If anyone knows more about this, please speak up.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep category and refine according to the top-of-the-category description. Obviously this category needs to include academics like
Charles Hodge, and it should also include clergy notable primarily because of their theologically polemical writing, such as
Jack Deere (to give someone on the
opposite end of the
spectrum from Hodge). Deere's one of the tricky ones: he has comparatively little academic work (he taught for a few years, but his career's mostly been in the pulpit), but his work is definitely on the learned side and less on the popular side; he's far from the Joel Osteen types, whom the theologians study as (essentially) contemporary folk religion. We need this category to include the Deeres but to exclude the Osteens, to include less-credentialed people notable for scholarly-informed writings and to exclude people who only really write for the man on the street.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The thing is, the concept of the "man on the street" changes. There are two aspects to this discussion, that of old theologians, and that of modern theologians. Even with Hodge, he wrote books for the man on the street, and they would be considered very heavy going today. Almost all 17th century religious writing is heavy-duty theology. Now, "heavy" is not quite the same thing as "academic", but there certainly are grey areas and fuzzy boundaries here.
StAnselm (
talk)
06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The difference is that the man on the street in Austin's day actually had some idea of theology, and even in Hodge's day; what remained of folk religion in 17th-century England was intertwined with "academic" theology (when Puritans such as Austin attacked a practice as "superstition", it was Catholic or something in the Anglican church that they perceived as a Catholic left-over; this wasn't enduring worship of Woden), and the man on Hodge's street was likewise living in a context in which "academic" theology, basic theological literacy, was still high. I say Deere's "less on the popular side" because he interacts with scholars of similar and opposing perspectives (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit isn't a how-to for getting the
Second Blessing), not because he's hard to understand; I read some of his works in college freshman Bible class (he represented the opposite-from-Hodge perspective on the Pentecostalism debate), and although I had no academic background in theology, I still understood him quite easily. He writes for the man on Hodge's street, not for the typical man on his own street who knows nothing of theology, a huge difference from the Osteen types (e.g. The Prayer of Jabez), and we need to make a distinction between the Hodge-or-Deere types and the Osteen types.
Nyttend (
talk)
07:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree with proposed definition: people should only be classed as theologians when they have made clear contributions to develop the field of theology. A broader definition would include all the clergy tree, thus reducing the value of this category. A similar useful division can be seen in
Category:Educators (practitioners) and
Category:Educationists (theory), although we don't have the benefit of alternate terms for the two in terms of theology.
SFB16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I would suggest that we should be limiting this to those producing academic or devotional works, not every clergyman who has had a theology degree as part of his training. However, is this the right place for us to be discussing this?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The problem I have is with devotional works of non-academic theological interest. Most clerics in Wikipedia have written something if only to be notable for an article, but I would propose to be very reluctant to classify them in the theologians tree as an occupation, for the reason that SFB just described very well. (As for your second question, this is a category discussion, isn't it?)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:20th & 21th Century Science Fiction Television Series
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't really see the value in this orphaned cat that was created today. Another editor decided to redirect it to
Category:20th & 21st Century Science Fiction Television Series because of the "21th" error, but that category uses incorrect capitalisation and the editor that moved the cat didn't bother moving any of the files. Neither category was added to any other categories so this category is orphaned. In all, quite a mess.
AussieLegend (
✉)
13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Remove I naively created this category not realising that there was already a science fiction television series category, thus the content from this category would most likely duplicate the aforementioned content of category because all television content is native to the 20th and 21st century. Therefore I will move all articles in the category to the proper science fiction television series category (
Category:Science_fiction_television_series ) and it shall be deleted.--
Techhead55 (
talk)
13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Remove If it were split into both is may make more sense but currently there are only Sci-Fi TV shows from those centuries because TV was made in the 20th and we are currently in the 21st. The Category is just shouldn't exist.--
Ditto51 (
MyTalkPage)
13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pathé's Luke films
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.
Rename to
Category:Lonesome Luke films. This is a clear, distinctive series of films based upon the same central character. There is clear benefit to navigating these films together, though the current naming is not the best choice.
SFB16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename. I have changed the redirect
Lonesome Luke from Harold Lloyd to a more specific target, and added this on the category page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fayenatic london (
talk •
contribs)
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:Victims of Blasphemy law in Pakistan
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.
Nominator's rationale: Fails
WP:NPOV.
WP:BLP concerns with labeling people as "victims". Also, which "blasphemy law"? One in the present, multiple ones in the future, something in the past?
Elizium23 (
talk)
05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Question: were some of these accused and then murdered before they could be prosecuted? If so, RD's proposal only covers part of the scope of the category. –
FayenaticLondon17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename; its scope is reasonable and useful. "Victim" sounds like something extralegal, and if you're lynched before prosecution, your punishment didn't happen because of the law anyway. Not fond of "convicted of blasphemy by Pakistan" (it sounds like the whole nation is sitting in judgement on your case), so "convicted of blasphemy in Paskistan" would be better.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support StAnselm's suggestion. The current scope incorporates very different things here and the distinction between those convicted and killed is a useful one.
SFB16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support StAnselm. My concern is that those accused and even those acquitted are frequently subject ot murder - effectively a lynching. However, we do not normally allow "accused" categories, becasue they are potentially libellous.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Talke
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 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:People from Marlborough Township, Pennsylvania
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 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:People from Great Haywood
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 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:Narrow streets
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While all three articles in this category are indisputably very narrow, there's no objective way to know which articles should be included. And what's considered a wide street in Warsaw may be considered narrow in Los Angeles. The articles are already well represented elsewhere in the
Category:Roads tree so there is no need for a merge.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Creator's Rationale: Presumably to qualify for this category, the street would have to be notable for being narrow. That is, the fact of its narrowness would in and of itself meet Wikipedia's requirement of notability. The category could have a definition similar to what is done for the
category of tall ships or could depend as it does now on what is generally considered narrow as does the
category of inlets. The advantage of having this reside in a category is that it is more maintainable; an article only has to be identified by itself, not be linked from multiple other articles. I personally find the practice of cross-mentions within articles, e.g. Article on narrow street A mentions narrow street B and narrow street C; article on narrow street C mentions B but not A; and so on, to be distracting. See also deals with the distraction issue, but still has the issue of maintainabilty, in that each See also has to be individually maintained across multiple pages.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thincat, thank you, that was very helpful. That article also led me to the one on
overcategorization which leads me to believe that I did jump to categorization. As for the article you referred me to, the advantage of making it a list would be the ability to list the alleys in sequence from narrowest to widest, provided that widths were available in the respective articles.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Useful category, and all the articles there fit the category perfectly. This should only be included in an article whose narrowness has been commented on in reliable sources, and usually that will mean the street is notable for being so narrow - hence the categorisation is appropriate.
StAnselm (
talk)
02:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
QuestionLaSalle Street is narrow for a downtown Chicago street and
Schuylkill Expressway is narrow for an Interstate, per the sourced articles, but I wouldn't consider them narrow per se. Should they be added?
Delete per RevelationDirect's question. Narrowness indeed gets coverage in some instances, but often it's because the street isn't as wide as others around it. Unless someone's putting forth a study of specifically narrow streets (instead of narrower-than-nearby-streets streets), it's all relative, and that's not helpful for categorisation here. Tall ships — there's a solid concept of
tall ship, with rigid definitions in some quarters, and apparently a popular concept in general, By the 21st century, "Tall ship" is often used generically for large, classic, sailing vessels. Is there a comparable definition of "narrow street"? Note the absence of a
Narrow street article. In short, deletion is appropriate because, although streets sometimes get coverage for being narrow, this is still quite subjective, so it's not particularly useful for navigation. [Note that I editconflicted with RD's modified question; he mentioned
Elfreth's Alley in the question to which I was responding.]
Nyttend (
talk)
05:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I would say the items listed are in fact alleys and not streets (although the article on
streets considers alleys to be a subset of streets. The respective articles referred to them as streets. Would you accept redirecting the category
Category:Narrow streets to
Category:Alleys? Again, they would still have to be notable to be in that category.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, delete per a question — by "per" I mean "because of what was said there". His question about the narrower-than-other streets is a convincing reason for deletion, as I see it. If you want to make an argument for
Category:Alleys, I'm open to the idea, but alleys are quite different from some narrow streets; it definitely wouldn't be appropriate for the narrow LaSalle Street, and the articles on
Strada sforii and
Parliament Street, Exeter don't use "alley" except in the See alsos.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, when I was there for the first time in October, I was surprised by its width; I was expecting something about six feet wide, but someone (how, I'm not sure) had parked a car in the middle.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Per the article on
streets, an expressway would not generally be referred to as a street. As for LaSalle Street, the question is whether it be notable for that aspect. That said, as noted below,
alley may be a more appropriate term for this category.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Alleys (changed from "keep" above). This sounds like a useful compromise which avoids all possible subjectivity. (NB: This may involve removing some pages from the category.)
StAnselm (
talk)
23:09, 21 December 2014 (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.
Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members
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.
Keep all - poorly researched. Just because a category is a child of
Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members does not mean it is only within that category. Example: the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a well established Order which is awarded to many who are not "heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members", there are several ranks and even the senior ranks may be awarded more widely. The proposal affects all rank categories and several related articles. This is way too broad a brush - has it been researched? There may be others in the same situation.
Folks at 137 (
talk)
00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete the parent. As noted by Folks at 137, many of these categories cover decorations given for other purposes as well, and yet presumably they don't all. This makes the parent category useless for navigation: we can't tell what's what. I would support deleting any child categories that can be shown to be awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, because I agree with the nomination statement. To make this parent category useful, we'd have to remove everything that's not awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and the nomination statement would then be correct — but this kind of action would leave the parent category empty and thus cause its deletion, too.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. These are almost without exception not defining for the recipients and also run afoul of the other overcategorization guidelines, such as
WP:OCAWARD. This is the case whether or not the recipient is limited to heads of state and their family members. For these reasons I think that in general that these are an ill-conceived use of the category system. These are the kinds of things that are certainly notable, and should be included in articles about the awards, but they are not defining for recipients. (I think that if deletion is a possibility, it is also important that the categories be listed here as part of the nomination, perhaps in a collapsible table.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep all. The categories may need work to make navigating them easier. Difficulty in navigation is not a reason for deleting them. I've just been looking at the entries in the higher categories to try to figure out who is in them and why they are. Then, when I look at who is in the lesser categories, I wonder why they are not in the higher categories. (I'm referring specifically to the Finnish Orders here). The point is that it's all useful, valuable information that editors have taken a long time to compile. And now some busy body wants to come along and sweep it all away. There's too much wanton vandalism on Wikipedia posing as tidying up and deleting not-noteworthy articles. This is yet just another example.
124.185.54.154 (
talk)
17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)reply
No, there are lots in this category where it is mentioned in the lead. Now, I know these things are a load of old cobblers (look at
Andrzej Ciechanowiecki so it's not just British cobblers) but people really are sometimes defined by such things.
Thincat (
talk)
17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I am actually in the process of checking the use of categories relating to the various Orders of St John. Some biographies have been wrongly categorised, so it will be that the Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John is incomplete and could include more people for whom the award is "defining" (however defined). So please wait a bit before judgement.
Folks at 137 (
talk)
21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It looks as if
Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire is defining for most people in that category. It is nearly always mentioned in the first sentence. It is wholly irrelevant that it is a child of
Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. It is not up to people here to search to see whether any of the categories are defining for any of the people it includes but it is up to the nominator to show that none of the categories are defining for any of the people they include. I am not convinced that due diligence has been shown before making this nomination. This is an unreasonable batch nomination because the child categories do not form a batch from the point of view of whether they are defining for what they include. I have a lot of sympathy with Nyttend's suggestion to consider deleting the parent category. A very poorly considered nomination.
Thincat (
talk)
15:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
General comment Some discussants have suggested deleting the parent category. Although I had deliberately excluded the parent category from the nomination, I'm not opposed to deleting the parent category as well, I had merely excluded it from the nomination in order not to have two different discussions in one nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Not for one moment should my !vote above be considered as supporting deletion of the parent. I simply think that it is not a foolish suggestion.
Thincat (
talk)
16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. Actually I would suggest, just for clarity, that people who desire so will nominate the deletion of the parent category in a separate CfD. After all, the parent category isn't tagged for deletion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree with that. I suspect that some of the child categories may have been inappropriately included in the parent but that may depend on exactly how the parent is defined.
Thincat (
talk)
16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep (perhaps purged) -- The problem with award categories is that they create clutter. That does not mean that we should not have a category of articles. In some cases a category may be appropriate. The problem is that heads of state tend to get given awards by lots of other states for diplomatic reasons. It is thus undesirable to have awards categories on their articles. However if the award is being given by a state or its own citizens (or in a few cases such as Hon GBE and Hon KBE) distinguished non-citizens, it may be appropriate to have them in an award category. Somehow we need to have a rule that excludes honours given for diplomatic reasons.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And to be honest, I don't think
WP:OCAWARD is a helpful guideline. In the first place, it doesn't reflect reality - awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists. Secondly, it is a bit hard to work out what the guideline is saying - it seems the "exceptions" clause is referring to cases where the award is not a defining characteristic - that is, we use categories when either (a) the award is a defining characteristic, or (b) when it is not a defining characteristic, but for whatever reason an exception can be granted. Thirdly, it doesn't give any hint about what the exceptions might be or why they are granted - the examples given are all for non-existent categories. Fourthly, the number of award categories is already far less than the number of extant awards, so the categories are relatively few in number anyway. Fifthly, I think as a community we have for a long time been deeply divided on the issue - there are editors who believe all award categories should be scrapped, and those who believe (virtually) all should exist - and so it is better to leave the issue alone. (See also
Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Awards (again).)
StAnselm (
talk)
11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
StAnselm: In assessing
WP:OCAWARD, it's not very important that "awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists". This is because any user can create a category, and it will continue to exist until there is consensus to delete it. A far more relevant assessment would be what is the usual outcome of CFDs in which award categories are nominated. And the answer to that is that they are usually deleted/listified—overwhelmingly so, in fact.
Good Ol’factory(talk)17:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)reply
WP:NONDEF says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. In this case, with only one person in each of these categories for which the award might be defining, there is not the commonality or consistency that
WP:NONDEF requires. Hence the rationale to delete is fully applicable.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - these categories cause many articles to be in many categories for a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Presumably, this info is already in the text of the articles (with references) and if some editors wish to have the info in a more structured form then isn't that exactly what Wikidata is for ?
DexDor (
talk)
07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete only
Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. This is a mish-mosh of titles and awards for heads of states amd family and even consorts? How about the the family pets too? (Looks over at
Caligula.) Different countries have different political systems, different types of heads of state and the titles are just that, titles, with, in some cases, greatly varying meaning ad/or value. Such things should be subcategorised by the state that these are heads of. If you want a cross-country comparison of such titles, a
List would be far more suitable for use. - jc3701:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Theologians
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.
Nominator's rationale: See proposed definition of theologians category on the category page. As
Category:Theologians is part of the
Category:Occupations tree it is obvious that academic theologians should be classified here. The grey area with classifying "Theologians" is with clergy who wrote pastoral-theological, social-theological, political-theological books/texts/pamphlets that are not of clear academic theological interest. Should they be classified as Theologians or not? With the proposed definition, writing clergy should be classified as Theologians only by exception, but not as a rule. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with people that are in the clergy tree anyway. I'm requesting consensus about this definition.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I note that Austin's book mentioned above gets a page or so discussion in
this PhD thesis. That makes me think he's in the theologian category. "Ordinary" clergy aren't usually notable, anyway - if 17th century divines are notable, it's usually for their (theological) writing.
StAnselm (
talk)
19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks, this is really a very useful comment in order to further clarify the nomination. Because the nomination is not about the writings of clergy, it is about the theological significance of the writings. In this case the writing is merely used as a source for a thesis in (church) history, rather than for a thesis in theology. For a thesis in (church) history just any (clerical) writing from the respective period may be significant, which would not be the case for a thesis in theology.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
That's a fair point. This is a bit off track, but the disambiguation in some of these titles is perhaps a bigger issue. Austin is called a "divine", and the article links to a definition: "clergy whose theological writings have been considered standards for faith, doctrine, worship and spirituality". Are "divines" are a subset of "theologians", then? And if Austin is not a theologian, then it's more important to change the article lead ("was a puritan theologian and divine...") then changing the category. And if he's not actually a divine, then the article title needs to be changed.
StAnselm (
talk)
21:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
You may well be right, though I haven't touched the divines because the definition ("... have been considered...") is not quite clear on whether there is perhaps a fixed list of divines. If anyone knows more about this, please speak up.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep category and refine according to the top-of-the-category description. Obviously this category needs to include academics like
Charles Hodge, and it should also include clergy notable primarily because of their theologically polemical writing, such as
Jack Deere (to give someone on the
opposite end of the
spectrum from Hodge). Deere's one of the tricky ones: he has comparatively little academic work (he taught for a few years, but his career's mostly been in the pulpit), but his work is definitely on the learned side and less on the popular side; he's far from the Joel Osteen types, whom the theologians study as (essentially) contemporary folk religion. We need this category to include the Deeres but to exclude the Osteens, to include less-credentialed people notable for scholarly-informed writings and to exclude people who only really write for the man on the street.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The thing is, the concept of the "man on the street" changes. There are two aspects to this discussion, that of old theologians, and that of modern theologians. Even with Hodge, he wrote books for the man on the street, and they would be considered very heavy going today. Almost all 17th century religious writing is heavy-duty theology. Now, "heavy" is not quite the same thing as "academic", but there certainly are grey areas and fuzzy boundaries here.
StAnselm (
talk)
06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The difference is that the man on the street in Austin's day actually had some idea of theology, and even in Hodge's day; what remained of folk religion in 17th-century England was intertwined with "academic" theology (when Puritans such as Austin attacked a practice as "superstition", it was Catholic or something in the Anglican church that they perceived as a Catholic left-over; this wasn't enduring worship of Woden), and the man on Hodge's street was likewise living in a context in which "academic" theology, basic theological literacy, was still high. I say Deere's "less on the popular side" because he interacts with scholars of similar and opposing perspectives (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit isn't a how-to for getting the
Second Blessing), not because he's hard to understand; I read some of his works in college freshman Bible class (he represented the opposite-from-Hodge perspective on the Pentecostalism debate), and although I had no academic background in theology, I still understood him quite easily. He writes for the man on Hodge's street, not for the typical man on his own street who knows nothing of theology, a huge difference from the Osteen types (e.g. The Prayer of Jabez), and we need to make a distinction between the Hodge-or-Deere types and the Osteen types.
Nyttend (
talk)
07:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree with proposed definition: people should only be classed as theologians when they have made clear contributions to develop the field of theology. A broader definition would include all the clergy tree, thus reducing the value of this category. A similar useful division can be seen in
Category:Educators (practitioners) and
Category:Educationists (theory), although we don't have the benefit of alternate terms for the two in terms of theology.
SFB16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I would suggest that we should be limiting this to those producing academic or devotional works, not every clergyman who has had a theology degree as part of his training. However, is this the right place for us to be discussing this?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The problem I have is with devotional works of non-academic theological interest. Most clerics in Wikipedia have written something if only to be notable for an article, but I would propose to be very reluctant to classify them in the theologians tree as an occupation, for the reason that SFB just described very well. (As for your second question, this is a category discussion, isn't it?)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:20th & 21th Century Science Fiction Television Series
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't really see the value in this orphaned cat that was created today. Another editor decided to redirect it to
Category:20th & 21st Century Science Fiction Television Series because of the "21th" error, but that category uses incorrect capitalisation and the editor that moved the cat didn't bother moving any of the files. Neither category was added to any other categories so this category is orphaned. In all, quite a mess.
AussieLegend (
✉)
13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Remove I naively created this category not realising that there was already a science fiction television series category, thus the content from this category would most likely duplicate the aforementioned content of category because all television content is native to the 20th and 21st century. Therefore I will move all articles in the category to the proper science fiction television series category (
Category:Science_fiction_television_series ) and it shall be deleted.--
Techhead55 (
talk)
13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Remove If it were split into both is may make more sense but currently there are only Sci-Fi TV shows from those centuries because TV was made in the 20th and we are currently in the 21st. The Category is just shouldn't exist.--
Ditto51 (
MyTalkPage)
13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pathé's Luke films
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.
Rename to
Category:Lonesome Luke films. This is a clear, distinctive series of films based upon the same central character. There is clear benefit to navigating these films together, though the current naming is not the best choice.
SFB16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename. I have changed the redirect
Lonesome Luke from Harold Lloyd to a more specific target, and added this on the category page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fayenatic london (
talk •
contribs)
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:Victims of Blasphemy law in Pakistan
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.
Nominator's rationale: Fails
WP:NPOV.
WP:BLP concerns with labeling people as "victims". Also, which "blasphemy law"? One in the present, multiple ones in the future, something in the past?
Elizium23 (
talk)
05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Question: were some of these accused and then murdered before they could be prosecuted? If so, RD's proposal only covers part of the scope of the category. –
FayenaticLondon17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename; its scope is reasonable and useful. "Victim" sounds like something extralegal, and if you're lynched before prosecution, your punishment didn't happen because of the law anyway. Not fond of "convicted of blasphemy by Pakistan" (it sounds like the whole nation is sitting in judgement on your case), so "convicted of blasphemy in Paskistan" would be better.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support StAnselm's suggestion. The current scope incorporates very different things here and the distinction between those convicted and killed is a useful one.
SFB16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support StAnselm. My concern is that those accused and even those acquitted are frequently subject ot murder - effectively a lynching. However, we do not normally allow "accused" categories, becasue they are potentially libellous.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Talke
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 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:People from Marlborough Township, Pennsylvania
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 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:People from Great Haywood
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 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:Narrow streets
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While all three articles in this category are indisputably very narrow, there's no objective way to know which articles should be included. And what's considered a wide street in Warsaw may be considered narrow in Los Angeles. The articles are already well represented elsewhere in the
Category:Roads tree so there is no need for a merge.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Creator's Rationale: Presumably to qualify for this category, the street would have to be notable for being narrow. That is, the fact of its narrowness would in and of itself meet Wikipedia's requirement of notability. The category could have a definition similar to what is done for the
category of tall ships or could depend as it does now on what is generally considered narrow as does the
category of inlets. The advantage of having this reside in a category is that it is more maintainable; an article only has to be identified by itself, not be linked from multiple other articles. I personally find the practice of cross-mentions within articles, e.g. Article on narrow street A mentions narrow street B and narrow street C; article on narrow street C mentions B but not A; and so on, to be distracting. See also deals with the distraction issue, but still has the issue of maintainabilty, in that each See also has to be individually maintained across multiple pages.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thincat, thank you, that was very helpful. That article also led me to the one on
overcategorization which leads me to believe that I did jump to categorization. As for the article you referred me to, the advantage of making it a list would be the ability to list the alleys in sequence from narrowest to widest, provided that widths were available in the respective articles.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Useful category, and all the articles there fit the category perfectly. This should only be included in an article whose narrowness has been commented on in reliable sources, and usually that will mean the street is notable for being so narrow - hence the categorisation is appropriate.
StAnselm (
talk)
02:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
QuestionLaSalle Street is narrow for a downtown Chicago street and
Schuylkill Expressway is narrow for an Interstate, per the sourced articles, but I wouldn't consider them narrow per se. Should they be added?
Delete per RevelationDirect's question. Narrowness indeed gets coverage in some instances, but often it's because the street isn't as wide as others around it. Unless someone's putting forth a study of specifically narrow streets (instead of narrower-than-nearby-streets streets), it's all relative, and that's not helpful for categorisation here. Tall ships — there's a solid concept of
tall ship, with rigid definitions in some quarters, and apparently a popular concept in general, By the 21st century, "Tall ship" is often used generically for large, classic, sailing vessels. Is there a comparable definition of "narrow street"? Note the absence of a
Narrow street article. In short, deletion is appropriate because, although streets sometimes get coverage for being narrow, this is still quite subjective, so it's not particularly useful for navigation. [Note that I editconflicted with RD's modified question; he mentioned
Elfreth's Alley in the question to which I was responding.]
Nyttend (
talk)
05:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I would say the items listed are in fact alleys and not streets (although the article on
streets considers alleys to be a subset of streets. The respective articles referred to them as streets. Would you accept redirecting the category
Category:Narrow streets to
Category:Alleys? Again, they would still have to be notable to be in that category.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, delete per a question — by "per" I mean "because of what was said there". His question about the narrower-than-other streets is a convincing reason for deletion, as I see it. If you want to make an argument for
Category:Alleys, I'm open to the idea, but alleys are quite different from some narrow streets; it definitely wouldn't be appropriate for the narrow LaSalle Street, and the articles on
Strada sforii and
Parliament Street, Exeter don't use "alley" except in the See alsos.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Yes, when I was there for the first time in October, I was surprised by its width; I was expecting something about six feet wide, but someone (how, I'm not sure) had parked a car in the middle.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Per the article on
streets, an expressway would not generally be referred to as a street. As for LaSalle Street, the question is whether it be notable for that aspect. That said, as noted below,
alley may be a more appropriate term for this category.
Thisisnotatest (
talk)
23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Alleys (changed from "keep" above). This sounds like a useful compromise which avoids all possible subjectivity. (NB: This may involve removing some pages from the category.)
StAnselm (
talk)
23:09, 21 December 2014 (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.