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. There are many users who have expressed interest in this category and the frequent disjoint between language and mathematics. This is a substantive issue and not merely "cute". Yours aye,
Buaidh talkcontribs18:57, 29 March 2021 (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:Washington County high points
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: The current name makes it sound like it is a category for high points in a county called "Washington County". I suggest renaming for clarity. Alternatively, we could delete, since this is the only county-level category of this type.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is a list, and I don't really think there's a need for categorisation by second-level subnational area. By state, fine - but by county within state is overkill.
Grutness...wha?23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Rename and Do not delete there's at least one book written about this subject. Not quite as arbitrary as it seems. Besides, many states are very large, and there are many tall peaks of note which require additional categorization besides just the state.
WP:NOTDUPE.
Martin, Andy (1994). County high points: For all western and northeastern states. Old Adit Press. ISBN 0962876216. List maintained at Peakbagger.com.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
00:26, 19 March 2021 (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:Wikipedians interested in skiing
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.
WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
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:Earliest known manuscripts by language
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to delete. I suggest a fresh nomination to rename, perhaps to first/ oldest / earliest known written accounts of languages. –
FayenaticLondon20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Arguments by future discoveries seem to be a violation of
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." We can not assume that new discoveries will occur, or even that such discoveries are plausible to occur. We only know about the current status quo, and report as such.
Dimadick (
talk)
16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment as languages are constantly evolving. Take English for example. The OED has extensive background on when English usage of particular words began. Do
WP:RS agree when Modern English began, and thus what the first written work is in Modern English? Is that issue unique to English?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Also per
WP:NOTTEMP, we shouldn't remove content just because it has the possibility of being out of date. In other words, if a manuscript is the earlier known account of a language now, even if an even older document were to be discovered, it doesn't erase the fact that the first document had been the "oldest known document" for a period of time.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It's about deletion discussions in general, it's also a guideline so it's not strictly meant to apply to anything. We can apply the same principles (loosely of course) to category discussions.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
Rename. If a text is considered the earliest for a language, that's defining. Most of the texts would be of little interest otherwise. If the dating of some text is disputed, that is a problem with the text, not the category. However the current name leaves out inscriptions.
Category:Earliest known written accounts of languages? --
Error (
talk)
09:15, 6 April 2021 (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:Executive branch of the Slovenian government
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:13th-century people from the Kingdom of Aragon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to rename, but I find sufficient support to allow creation of new parent categories for subjects of the Crown. –
FayenaticLondon13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose You can have people from a kingdom, but a crown is an object that a king wears.
Category:13th-century subjects of the Crown of Aragon would be a feasible alternative, but it would be better to Keep and explain in the headnote that it includes the other constituents of the wider Aragon state. This should preferably (after the Italian possessions were acquired) be limited to Iberian constituents, with Italian ones being dealt with through subcategories for the individual polities (including Kingdom of Naples).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Southern France only concerned a tiny bit (current
Roussillon) which then belonged to Catalonia anyway. The Italian kingdoms were of later stage and should be kept as subcategories (per Peterkingiron). So the discussion is really about Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca. As said before, it we would keep those separate and split by century it would lead to huge fragmentation.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It is very difficult categorising mediaeval people by the concurrent countries, but I think we should persist and if necessary operate on the principle of successive approximation.
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The Kingdom of Aragon was a defined unit. The areas under its control were only in personal union, so we should not treat them as a unified whole.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In the Middle Ages everything revolved around the monarch. A personal union for an indefinite period of time, as between Aragon and Catalonia, meant in practice that it functioned as one country with local self-governance. The same happened when Aragon and Castile merged to Spain, it was officially just a personal union.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:05, 18 March 2021 (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:Victims of anti-Protestantism
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.
People of Peranakan descent
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.
I am more willing to support a category name with a preposition, because it may mislead readers into thinking the name of the ethnicity is "Malaysian Peranakan" where I hardly see this name in literature.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Carlossuarez46: I've told you about this about but your assertion on every discussion that "descent is invalid" or some variation thereof is bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a
WP:POINT. Not only that but your own question can be found by reading the article, you have nothing to add and it's not even a vote.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Prisencolin: my view is consistent - it's neither disruptive. What's disruptive is your berating everyone with whom you disagree. Am I to think you intend to suppress my opinion as part of your on-going harassment?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
You're the only person who uses fringe logic to justify deleting under established guidelines, i.e. you're the only editor who regularly participates who argues that all descent categories should be deleted regardless of whether they are well-attested or not. I'm inclined to say this is kind of a violation of
WP:SOAPBOX principles but I'm not entirely sure. In any case this creates kind of a misleading record which could possibly be used in the future as evidence that there is community consensus to delete all descent categories, where it was just you.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
This is close to
WP:PA. It is obvious that Carlossuarez46 is the only one who argues here and in other discussions that all descent categories should be deleted so the jump to "misleading' does not make any sense. He has some valid points and it is completely alright to express them.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
He should take it to some other project or talk page on this site and link to that discussion instead of using
WP:ATAs, (to his credit he's only said "getting rid of the "descent" categories is good," in this category), but the language he uses in other discussions echo the sentiment. Addition, he usually just cut pastes the same userspace essay and
WP:VAGUEWAVES into discussions, which I don't think is very helpful. One of the few times Carlos has actually tried to engage in dialogue was to read the description of the page
Shanghainese people, which I will give him credit (I believe the way it was read was misleading, but that's not for here). -
Prisencolin (
talk)
21:58, 18 March 2021 (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.
WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan
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.
WikiProject Islamabad
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.
WikiProject Lahore
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:Recipients of the Military Order of St. Henry
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.
3 Actual Soldiers: This one seemed the most likely to be defining since it's the stated purpose of the award but General
Fritz von Loßberg, General
Oskar von Hutier and Staff Officer
Max Hoffmann just mention it in passing with other honours.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Rokel
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.
Order of the Rokel is a general purpose Sierra Leonean award "in the areas of to the public service, arts and sciences, and philanthropy". The recipients are as diverse as those reasons: a British General, a Mauritian mining executive, and, from Sierra Leone, a footballer, a Catholic biship, and a chief justice so there's no common thread. The articles generally mention the award in passing with other honours. The category contents are already listified right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:29, 14 March 2021 (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.
Keep. There are many users who have expressed interest in this category and the frequent disjoint between language and mathematics. This is a substantive issue and not merely "cute". Yours aye,
Buaidh talkcontribs18:57, 29 March 2021 (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:Washington County high points
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: The current name makes it sound like it is a category for high points in a county called "Washington County". I suggest renaming for clarity. Alternatively, we could delete, since this is the only county-level category of this type.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is a list, and I don't really think there's a need for categorisation by second-level subnational area. By state, fine - but by county within state is overkill.
Grutness...wha?23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Rename and Do not delete there's at least one book written about this subject. Not quite as arbitrary as it seems. Besides, many states are very large, and there are many tall peaks of note which require additional categorization besides just the state.
WP:NOTDUPE.
Martin, Andy (1994). County high points: For all western and northeastern states. Old Adit Press. ISBN 0962876216. List maintained at Peakbagger.com.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
00:26, 19 March 2021 (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:Wikipedians interested in skiing
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.
WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
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:Earliest known manuscripts by language
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to delete. I suggest a fresh nomination to rename, perhaps to first/ oldest / earliest known written accounts of languages. –
FayenaticLondon20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Arguments by future discoveries seem to be a violation of
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." We can not assume that new discoveries will occur, or even that such discoveries are plausible to occur. We only know about the current status quo, and report as such.
Dimadick (
talk)
16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment as languages are constantly evolving. Take English for example. The OED has extensive background on when English usage of particular words began. Do
WP:RS agree when Modern English began, and thus what the first written work is in Modern English? Is that issue unique to English?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Also per
WP:NOTTEMP, we shouldn't remove content just because it has the possibility of being out of date. In other words, if a manuscript is the earlier known account of a language now, even if an even older document were to be discovered, it doesn't erase the fact that the first document had been the "oldest known document" for a period of time.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It's about deletion discussions in general, it's also a guideline so it's not strictly meant to apply to anything. We can apply the same principles (loosely of course) to category discussions.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
Rename. If a text is considered the earliest for a language, that's defining. Most of the texts would be of little interest otherwise. If the dating of some text is disputed, that is a problem with the text, not the category. However the current name leaves out inscriptions.
Category:Earliest known written accounts of languages? --
Error (
talk)
09:15, 6 April 2021 (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:Executive branch of the Slovenian government
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:13th-century people from the Kingdom of Aragon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to rename, but I find sufficient support to allow creation of new parent categories for subjects of the Crown. –
FayenaticLondon13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose You can have people from a kingdom, but a crown is an object that a king wears.
Category:13th-century subjects of the Crown of Aragon would be a feasible alternative, but it would be better to Keep and explain in the headnote that it includes the other constituents of the wider Aragon state. This should preferably (after the Italian possessions were acquired) be limited to Iberian constituents, with Italian ones being dealt with through subcategories for the individual polities (including Kingdom of Naples).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Southern France only concerned a tiny bit (current
Roussillon) which then belonged to Catalonia anyway. The Italian kingdoms were of later stage and should be kept as subcategories (per Peterkingiron). So the discussion is really about Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca. As said before, it we would keep those separate and split by century it would lead to huge fragmentation.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It is very difficult categorising mediaeval people by the concurrent countries, but I think we should persist and if necessary operate on the principle of successive approximation.
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The Kingdom of Aragon was a defined unit. The areas under its control were only in personal union, so we should not treat them as a unified whole.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In the Middle Ages everything revolved around the monarch. A personal union for an indefinite period of time, as between Aragon and Catalonia, meant in practice that it functioned as one country with local self-governance. The same happened when Aragon and Castile merged to Spain, it was officially just a personal union.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:05, 18 March 2021 (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:Victims of anti-Protestantism
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.
People of Peranakan descent
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.
I am more willing to support a category name with a preposition, because it may mislead readers into thinking the name of the ethnicity is "Malaysian Peranakan" where I hardly see this name in literature.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Carlossuarez46: I've told you about this about but your assertion on every discussion that "descent is invalid" or some variation thereof is bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a
WP:POINT. Not only that but your own question can be found by reading the article, you have nothing to add and it's not even a vote.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Prisencolin: my view is consistent - it's neither disruptive. What's disruptive is your berating everyone with whom you disagree. Am I to think you intend to suppress my opinion as part of your on-going harassment?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
You're the only person who uses fringe logic to justify deleting under established guidelines, i.e. you're the only editor who regularly participates who argues that all descent categories should be deleted regardless of whether they are well-attested or not. I'm inclined to say this is kind of a violation of
WP:SOAPBOX principles but I'm not entirely sure. In any case this creates kind of a misleading record which could possibly be used in the future as evidence that there is community consensus to delete all descent categories, where it was just you.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
20:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
This is close to
WP:PA. It is obvious that Carlossuarez46 is the only one who argues here and in other discussions that all descent categories should be deleted so the jump to "misleading' does not make any sense. He has some valid points and it is completely alright to express them.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
He should take it to some other project or talk page on this site and link to that discussion instead of using
WP:ATAs, (to his credit he's only said "getting rid of the "descent" categories is good," in this category), but the language he uses in other discussions echo the sentiment. Addition, he usually just cut pastes the same userspace essay and
WP:VAGUEWAVES into discussions, which I don't think is very helpful. One of the few times Carlos has actually tried to engage in dialogue was to read the description of the page
Shanghainese people, which I will give him credit (I believe the way it was read was misleading, but that's not for here). -
Prisencolin (
talk)
21:58, 18 March 2021 (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.
WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan
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.
WikiProject Islamabad
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.
WikiProject Lahore
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:Recipients of the Military Order of St. Henry
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.
3 Actual Soldiers: This one seemed the most likely to be defining since it's the stated purpose of the award but General
Fritz von Loßberg, General
Oskar von Hutier and Staff Officer
Max Hoffmann just mention it in passing with other honours.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Rokel
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.
Order of the Rokel is a general purpose Sierra Leonean award "in the areas of to the public service, arts and sciences, and philanthropy". The recipients are as diverse as those reasons: a British General, a Mauritian mining executive, and, from Sierra Leone, a footballer, a Catholic biship, and a chief justice so there's no common thread. The articles generally mention the award in passing with other honours. The category contents are already listified right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:29, 14 March 2021 (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.