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.
Delete Yes, I didn't realize there was already a category. I would've put a delete notice on the category page but the CSD says to wait a minimum of 4 days after creation. LizRead!Talk! 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate category. Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth I am not sure if this is more a category by award, or a category by membership in an honorary society similar to a sorority in some respects, but either way it is not a good way to categorize people and leads to category clutter. These people are the monarchs or consorts of various places, and best categorized for that, not various awards, honors and distinctions given to them for being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chivaric orders are not really that much different than sororities and fraternities. Why exactly do we categorize by membership in them. This just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one but we need a wider discussion on a awards by national governments. We need to draw a distinction between:
National awards to their own citizens (and residents), which are a recognition of their notability, though some national awards may not be sufficient by themsleves to confer WP notability. For them award categories may be useful.
National awards to foreign monarchs and other royalty; also leading politicians, which are an aspect of international diplomacy. The Royals and politicians are notable from that status, not from the award. WP:OC#AWARD should be strictly applied, usually resulting in listification.
These are not the equivalent of a fraternity or sorority, since membership is awarded, not coopted, but they will clutter up articles badly. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the Order of Saint Elizabeth article since it's a stub anyway. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 06:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Elizabeth[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is another one of the awards that is limited to heads of state, or members of their family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, since you didn't nominate the parent category, and its documentation appears to indicate it is a recipients category, it will receive all the contents of this category anyways, as proper categorization; I fail to see why you'd nominate a specific grade if you thought the entire order was not defining. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify the three articles in this category on the Order of Elizabeth article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded more awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Out of the three articles this category is on one individual is in six honours categories, another is in four and the last is in two; none of whom are defined by this honour I might add. —dainomite 06:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of the Sacred Tripod[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We are only supposed to categorize by awards that are truly central to the notability of those who received them. Considering how many awards some of the people in this category received, that does not seem to be the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The specific instruction is "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." how is this a defining characteristic or the people involved. When people have reiceved 50 awards claiming all 50 are defining just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a national award. Though it has some foreign recipients, it does not appear to be exclusively a diplomatic honour to foreign royalty and politicians. Hence by the principle I suggested, under Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth, it should be kept, though perhaps purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the Order of the Sacred Tripod stub. All the recipients are military leaders, that is a notable and defining characteristic of them and this honour is not. Obviously there are some exceptions like the MoH, VC etc but not this. If you look at Ernest King, Douglas MacArthur, Thomas Hinman Moorer and Chester W. Nimitz all of them have dozens of these and all of them fit the same bill of non-defining characteristics and it leads to excessive category clutter as seen on all the aforementioned articles. —dainomite 06:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Unlike some of the other actor/ethnicity categories nominated on this date, this is not re-created material. It was nominated for deletion here, with the result of "no consensus". The closing admin's statement there applies as much to this discussion: "In many other recent discussions, there has been a consensus to upmerge intersections of actors and ethnicity. In this case, there is clearly no consensus."Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We at a previous CfD (linked to in the entry below) decided to do this for Japanese, Korean and Indian categories. I see no reason why we should not do this for the Chinese category. The ethnicity involved is being of Chinese descent, not really as much specific national manifestations of it. The problem with these categories is they are going against the rules about notability of intersects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same argument as below. See Anna May Wong, David Henry Hwang and, um, Bruce Lee for American actors whose Chinese ethnicity is definitely relevant to their notability. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these categories are valid and I think Category:Actors of Chinese descent is not specific enough for the searches people will conduct. It doesn't distinguish, for example, between Chinese-American actors from Hong Kong actors who've worked no where else. LizRead!Talk! 23:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By this rationale, we should eliminate all 48 subcategories in Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent and the subcategories in Category:People by occupation and ethnicity. I'm sure you could find examples in each of those categories with an individual's ethnicity isn't relevant to their occupation. But I think along with Category guidelines, one has to consider what categories users are creating to help organize knowledge. LizRead!Talk! 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The assertion that "they are going against the rules" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and in fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument is not built so much around ERGS, as around the previous discussions that seem to have decided that we should not split categories like Category:Actors of Indian descent by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Upmerger of the male actors category specifically. We have decided at multiple discussion to use actresses and male actors as the category names, and to not have actors be a stand in category for male actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, I will seriously consider the validity of reasoning behind deleting these categories once the WP community comes together and decide that they should delete Category:African-American actors and other similar African American categories. For that matter, I'm not sure why that category hasn't been renamed Category:American actors of African descent. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per my argument at the previous cfd: within US culture, certain ethnicities are still not recognized as identical to the mainstream images on tv/movies. in this field, appearance is 90% of the reason for getting a job. historically, most people from these ethnic groups would get very limited roles. its better now, but we dont base our categories on our best intentions, but on current and historic truth. and of course, why not eliminate all other 48 cats of this nature, and oppose per Robofish's point about certain actors notability for their ethnicity. its true that SOME actors (like Dean Cain, as mentioned in the previous cfd) are not normally labelled by their ethnicity, but thats clearly because they dont look particularly "ethnic". not all elements in a category are as "categoryish" as others, which is why its good to have other ways of describing such, like lists, article sections, to provide nuance. the prime example of why ethnicity and performance is essential is in pornography, where its of paramount importance, and will be until we all look identical.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is all about appearance, than this is a categorization by race, which we specifically disallow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I created some of these categories. I have come to see we do not need these triple-intersect categories. They will lead to much to ghettoization to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all violates WP:CATEGRS unless people can bring forth reliable sources that these actors act differently than their non-Fooish descent peers. If one cannot, these cannot stay. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:CATEGRS includes: " But an American politician of Native American descent is a different context from an American politician of European background. Thus, Category:Native American politicians is valid, but Category:German American politicians and Category:Swedish American politicians should not exist. The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that politicians of that ethnic background happen to exist." We also have porn actors listed by nationality and ethnicity. and its not by "appearance" here if its by chinese, japanese, etc. and asian descent will of course include south asian and other areas often not associated with "asian" features, so its not by race. of course they dont "act" differently. they are hired differently, even to this day. heres a source showing this ghettoization: [1], and i believe there are a lot more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same arguments as below for the other similar categories. Are you really going to go one by one and list each one before consensus is reached, and maybe people will get tired of it and stop weighing in? Tvoz/talk 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom and previous cfd. Oculi (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the extent that Actors of Chinese descent are a distinct group, with clear history, this is a result of their participation in the largely international field of acting. They will be involved in British, American and Canadian productions, and their joint history will be seen in treatment in the same way in all these places. Actors of Chinese descent will be treated as a group throughout, without much regard to where they initially came from. It really does not make sense to split them by specific nationality and ethnicity in an acting context. To the extent an actor from Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc. is identified as of Chinese descent they will fit in this category. From a perspective of having useful categories that actually help in searching, I think we are better served by putting people in specific categories like Category:American people of Chinese descent or Category:Australian people of Chinese descent and then the generalized part category, not splitting them by specific nationality in the descent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American actors of Japanese descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge and delete. This is re-created material, Category:American actors of Japanese descent having been deleted most recently here. If re-creation is desired, the proper step would be to start a nomination at WP:DRV. I do not regard this discussion as presenting the clear consensus that would be required to overturn the previous consensus.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is per the decision at this [2] CfD, which has been ignored by an editor who just went ahead and recreated this category, apparently ignoring not only the notice against recreation, but the fact that she was lead to this category at all by a link I posted in a previous CfD discussion while stating explicitly that we had decided against having this category. For these to work, people really have to be able to convincingly argue that Dean Cain's career as an actor is effected by him being of Japanese descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not want to upmerge to the various American actors cats, because those are already sub-divided in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you think this isn't a notable intersection, I can only disagree. I'd be impressed by anyone who could argue that the Japanese ethnicity of George Takei and Pat Morita is irrelevant to their acting careers. Please note we actually have an entire article on the notable subject of Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think ethnicity is a relevant issue and I don't care where Dean Cain is listed. One should weigh the value of the categories for readers to search, not focus on one ambiguous example (is he or isn't he?). And, by the way, I was not led to this category by any link of yours, I've been working all day on creating male actors categories to correspond to actresses categories. I've spent more time working with pre-20th century categories than ethnic categories. I saw the CfD discussion after I created the categories you want to delete.
Are you ready to dispense with categories for Jewish-American actors, African-American actors, Native American actors, Hispanic and Latino American actors and Puerto Rican actors? Not to mention British actors of Chinese descent or British actors of South Asian descent and all of the descent categories for other nationalities. It's not unusual to have these categories.
Why don't you go after truly useless categories like Category:Actors from North Carolina? That serves absolutely no purpose at all. Actors/Actresses by state is a truly pointless set of categories. LizRead!Talk! 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These arguments are clearly ignoring that this is an already decided issue, and there needs to be consensus to change. Also, the "other stuff exists" arguments is not legitimate. If someone does not like that category they are free to nominate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus changes and there was probably only a half a dozen Editors who weighed in the last time this issue (Occupation & Ethnicity) was discussed. Let's publicize this to a larger group of users beyond the few CfD regulars and see what other users think. LizRead!Talk! 02:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - The assertion that "this is an already decided issue" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and in fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute that there has never been a consensus on such matters. When the guideline was formulated, there was actually a pretty strong consensus on the matter. Now, that was several years ago, and a lot has changed since then and it's possible that there is no longer a consensus on the issue either way. But it's a stretch to say that there has never been one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went to these category pages and there don't appear to be any notifications posted. Could this be remedied? LizRead!Talk! 14:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one can realistically question that Dean Cain is an American of Japanese descent. The problem is that it is not at all notable to his career, which tends towards the view this is a categorization by trivial trait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous discussion seemed to have ruled that where this is just a specific descent+American we should not do it, Native American is a very different category, seen by its different form, which is why we allowed it. I now regret that we did not push to get rid of all of these back when it was discussed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all As per Robofish, Liz, Cgingold. The intersection of ethnicity and occupation, particularly for an occupation like acting where it specifically comes into play, is valid and useful. Guidelines do not dictate action, if they did they would be policy, and even if policy they would be subject to interpretation. This is not a trivial trait, and these cats allow readers to search on traits that they find of interest. We're supposed to be helping readers, not being doctrinaire or nit-picky. These cats work, and they provide a valuable means of navigation around the encyclopedia. No valid reason to delete.Tvoz/talk 23:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion and original research is nice to read, but we would like reliable sources to show that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom; these violate WP:CATEGRS; no one has brought forth any reliable sources that these folks act differently than their non-Fooish peers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not "are actors of Japanese descent a distinct group". The issue is "are American actors of Japanese descent a distinct group from the generalized group of actors of Japanese descent enough to have a separate American category." I would say no, although it might be a close call. Canadian actors of Japanese descent, British actors of Japanese descent, Australian actors of Japanese descent and so on would seem to be in similar situations, so I see no reason to split by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWentworth Miller I think illustrates why we want to be hesitant about these types of categories. He is in 10 descent cats, plus an African-American cat, and he is both a model and an actors. If we had these cats for American of Russian descent we might truly have a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. This is re-created material. Category:Jewish American actors was deleted here, and the deletion was endorsed at DRV here. However, per WP:CCC, I regard this discussion as involving enough editors and presenting a clear enough consensus to justify overturning the previous consensus decisions. (Disclosure: I have expressed opinions about Category:Jewish American actors in the past, but I have always been in favour of deletion, so I trust my closing of this discussion will not be viewed as tainted by those previously expressed opinions.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 19:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale If this was restricted to Actors in Jewish theatre, it might work. However as it stands it just plain does not work. Is Andrew Garfield's career at all effected by him being Jewish? In fact, I would argue that it would be hard to claim that any non-comedian has clear connections between being Jewish and their acting career. If that was the only problem this might still be workable. There is an additional problem though. This is justified as a category on the ground that "being Jewish is an ethnicity, not just a religion". However how does that work with the large number of people in Category:Converts to Judaism. Do we exclude those people from this category? Do we include them. We should just scrap this category, but if someone wants to start Category:Actors in Jewish theatre and even Category:Actors in Jewish cinema assuming there is such a thing as Jewish cinema, I have no problem with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert—I'm not finding the language "being Jewish is an ethnicity, not just a religion" simply by clicking on the three Categories that you are proposing for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I read this [3] previous discussion correctly, this category was deleted back in 2008. It was then recreated late last year without any discussion on overturning the previous deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - arguably a notable intersection. In response to the nominator's question about Andrew Garfield, he probably wouldn't have got his breakthrough role as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network if he hadn't been Jewish himself - Saverin and Zuckerberg's Jewishness is a plot point in the film. There are plenty of other actors, from Mel Brooks to Woody Allen to Barbra Streisand, whose Jewishness is indisputably relevant to their acting career. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish Americans have a long and historical role in the acting profession that is worth acknowledging. Also, this category is part of the larger Category:American Jews by occupation. Should all categories under that parent category be deleted as well? If you want to do away with Jewish categories, that is a larger discussion that should involve more Editors.
P.S. It's not an effective argument to pick one contemporary actor at random and argue that the category isn't valid for that one person so it should be abolished. There is an entire history of Yiddish theater that is important for the development of late 19th, early 20th century acting and entertainment. Granted most actors located in this category are part of that movement but you should have a long term view, not just think about 21st century actors. I guess you should work on deleting all of the child categories from Category:Jewish actors because Jewish-American actors is just the beginning. LizRead!Talk! 00:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I say that a category that limited itself to just those involved in Yiddish theatre would be valid. But to try to treat all actors who are Jewish as if they are somehow affected by this just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is violating the ERGS rules as well against ghettoizing, since there are people in it who are not in any non-Jewish specific acting categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do know, JPL, that no matter how many comments you post, we each count for one vote. And, yes, I do know it's not a strict vote count. I'm just eager to hear what other Editors think about these suggested deletions. LizRead!Talk! 02:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The insistence that this and other such categories are "violating the ERGS rules" ignores the fact that CAT:EGRS is a guideline -- not a "rule" -- and as such is supposed to reflect a concensus among editors. Clearly, there is no such concensus -- and in fact, there never has been. There has only been an enforced illusion of "concensus", with the guideline being applied as a straightjacket to smother dissent. Cgingold (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I declined a speedy delete on this as although there was a decision to delete this over half a decade ago, the arguments were weak. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8. In any case I would elect to keep this category, as actors are often described this way, so it means that it is useful and not an original or useless idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Media and acting, along with finance are areas of substantial Jewish American success, despite being a minority. It has nothing to do with Jewish "ethnicity" or religion itself. Any article about American Jews would include information on Jews (regardless of how they are Jewish) in these areas. For the opposite reason, that there are so few, but people think there are none, information on great American Jewish athletes also in informative and encyclopedic.Sposer (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for having an article on the subject, not for categorizing people this way. I see nothing in the above that could not be used to create Category:American Latter Day Saint actors. Why is Jewishness treated differently than other religions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts too. I'm not sure whether it's because people like them or hate them more than other religions, or just think that they are sufficiently distanced from Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, and Roman Catholics, that they are worth categorizing and the others aren't. It may also be that people perceive them in racial/ethnic types (which often goes with the "hate them" folks); however, people like Sammy Davis Jr. cause them to go into fits of illogic because it shows that one can change race/ethnicity, which makes race/ethnicity not a defining characteristic if merely changing religion can change it... go figure. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Jewishness is a religion, which seems to be what Bus stop is arguing above, than we even more should not have this category. We do not categorize people by the intersection of religion and occupation except in some very specific cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A purpose is served by the Categories if they are found meaningful to readers. I think readers would find such Categories meaningful. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of non-Jews have portrayed Jews in film, or is someone going to try and tell me Roberto Benigni is a Jew. So claiming someone has a connection to being Jewish because they have been cast as a Jew just does not seem to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per Liz, Cgingold, Robofish, Sposer. Again- the intersection of ethnicity and occupation, particularly for an occupation like acting where it specifically comes into play, is valid and useful. The "Jewishness" of actors is particularly notable and a particularly useful identification historically. Guidelines do not dictate action, if they did they would be policy, and even if policy they would be subject to interpretation. This is not a trivial trait, and these cats allow readers to search on traits that they find of interest. We're supposed to be helping readers, not being doctrinaire or nit-picky. These cats work, and they provide a valuable means of navigation around the encyclopedia. No valid reason to delete.Tvoz/talk 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom; these violate WP:CATEGRS - how do Jewish actors (whether religious or ethnically Jewish) act differently? What reliable sources show that all they do XXX, and all the non-Jewish don't do XXX. Nowhere will you find this; so this intersection is violative of WP:CATEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be helpful to some people. LiberatorLX (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually maybe I should have brought up the spectre that really is a threat. Category:Muslim American actors. There probably are valid reasons why Jewish categories do not force Muslim ones, but I have seen arguments that suggest they should.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
Keep I say it should stay, the title has a nice ring to it, when said. The "male" part just seems to make one syllable too many. Besides, actresses separates the female ones from them enough already. --ShortTermer (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. This is re-created material, the category having been deleted most recently here. If re-creation is desired, the proper step would be to start a nomination at WP:DRV. I do not regard this discussion as involving enough editors or presenting the clear consensus that would be required to overturn the previous consensus.Good Ol’factory(talk) 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We have deleted the essentially equivalent category Category:Italian-American actors 4 times if I read it's deletion history correctly. This category should not have been recreated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works. You have to present an argument to keep this specific category. We have decided this on multiple occasions, that specific categories of descent by occupation have to be justified by specifics of that intersection. We have also decided that in general specific European descents are not notable enough in acting to be kept. This argument was all gone over at the previous deletion discussion I linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who "we" is, but I think Liz is quite right that you are nominating something for deletion, so you should give the reasons to do so, not the other way around. This is a distortion of the process that is a foundational pillar - decisions by consensus. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ERGS rules suggest we should only have this category if we can create an article on American actors of Italian descent that is more than just a list. The fact that currently this category consists of a list, that is just a list with no sourced article parts suggests that in this case such an article cannot be created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ERGS are not rules, they are guidelines. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not think this works as defining to the people involved. Selena Gomez is a Hispanic and Latino American actress, a category I have never questioned that we should have. She also happens to have some Italian ancestry. That might be enough to class her in Category:American people of Italian descent, but it is not enough to class her as Category:American actresses of Italian descent. Doing such will just lead to category clutter. We decided to scrap the very closely related Category:American musicians of Italian descent. Having just a generalized people of x descent category is usually sufficient, I see no reason to subdivide by profession, since profession overlap is high, ERGS rules say people must be in a geneic non-ethnic category for all their professions, and having these categories will just create a mess. Hispanic and Latino works, because it is clearly defining of the people involved, Americans of Italian descent does not, because this often involves a barely trivial facto of ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid argument has been presented to delete. Actually no argument at all has been presented. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason to delete is because the intersection of being of Italian descent and being an actor is a trivial intersection. It does not change how the actor acts, and it rarely has much effect on the roles the person is cast in. It is a trivial intersection of occupation and ethnicity, and we do not categorize by trivial intersections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cat violates WP:CATEGRS; no reliable sources to show that actors with the minutest trace of Italian ancestry act any different that those without it. Who would actually believe such a proposition? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Honorary Companions of Honour of the National Order of Merit (Malta)[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This has a significant amount of useful information in the lead which we should make sure to include in a list somewhere. However this is another case of honorariness, which we should not categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Honorary Members of Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale If we discourage award categories and do not allow most honorary categories, we should not have any categories are for honorary recipients of awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collars of the Order of Merit (Chile)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is another one of the categories that has as its contents a bunch of people who have been given a huge number of awards. For example, Akihito is in this category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as category:Recipients of the Order of Merit (Chile) has not been nominated for deletion, and only this grade has been, and none of the other grade categories have been, there's no reason to delete the category, as it is a valid subcategorization, and with its deletion, the contents would just end up dumped in the parent category anyways, which would need to be subcategorized. You did not nominate "Recipients of the Order of Merit (Chile)". -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category, as it is being used as a diplomatic honour to foreign royalty and politicians. Listify if necessary: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. The answer to the IP is that the other classes of the award are given to citizens and residents who have made a major contribution to Chile. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Commanders of the Order of the Federal Republic (Nigeria)[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale 4 of the 6 people in this category are non-Nigerians who are in way too many categories. Even for the 2 Nigerians they are really in enough other categories and don't need this one. At a minimum we should purge someone like Akihito who is in 58 or so awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category. Listify if necessary: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. The two Nigerians are/were senior politicians who were notable for that, but we should find a way of merging them into a related category, possibly the root category for national honours. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collars of the Order of the Liberator[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Looking at the actual contents of this category it seems more to be "leaders who Venezuela wanted to show some level of respect for". This is just going to lead to way too many categories on articles. We need to stop this overcategorization right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Crosses Special Class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is another award that seems to only be given to foreign heads of state, members of royal families and the like. It is another cause of overcategorization with some people literally being in more than 50 awards categories, no exaggeration involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Knights Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale although this award is not given exclusively to head of state and members of royal families, it is given to people who are notable for other things. People are not notable for having received this award, they receive this award because they are notable. This just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it doesn't make sense to delete one grade of this order when the other grades are categorized. It will just result in these members being dumped into Category:Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, and this is a valid subcategorization of the recipients. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath. AND moreover the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George has developped in a charitable fraternityMimich (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it has? DexDor (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The entire contents of this category seem to be foreign royals. This is another category that just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIT is now a dynastic private order (for women) of the Greek royal family, worn by its members and sometime awarded upon discretion of the head of the Royal House of Greece.Mimich (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you prefer to call it an award or a dynastic private order it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Re: Necrothesp's point about awards issued by national governments, I think this one leans towards not being in that class. It used to be such an award, but it was de jure abolished in 1973, and continues as a private family tradition. The category seems to be used for a mixture of the two awards (the now abolished state-sanctioned award, and the past-40-years private award). It's worth mentioning both groups in the article, but not sure it's a useful category. --Delirium (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete Listify on the the corresponding award article. Generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Extra Ladies of the Order of the Garter[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category is specifically restricted to female foreign royals. These are people who are not in anyway notable for having received this. This leads always to category clutter and should be eliminated. It is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other grades of this order have membership categories, so these members will get dumped into the general category Category:Order of the Garter anyways, being consistent with categorization of people of this order -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the undesirability of putting people in 40 plus award categories do you not understand? Juliana of the Netherlands is in 44 awards categories, how is this helpful?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why I should pretend that the current system is working. When I can easily find 25 articles in 40+ awards categories something is broken and needs to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for the individual. —dainomite 07:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of Charles III[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Among the recipients of this award in Elizabeth II, who has apparently received 70 awards. Even the awards and honors article being in this category is still really a case of overcat. That article really should just be in a list category and the Elizabeth II category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However these people are all getting way too many awards, and for none of them is this particular award notable. The other levels of the award may be notable to the recipients, but this level is not. At this level it is an exercise in international diplomacy that is not notable to the people designated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Acoording to the article on this order, it is given out to Spaniards, there's even a restriction to the number of living members who are Spaniards with these grade. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for the individual. —dainomite 07:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collars of the Order of Civil Merit[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is another one of the awards given out to foreign heads of state like candy. We need to cut award clutter and this is the place to start. Maybe I should have nominated to whole category, but these names are so long and involved, I really try to focus on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge this is just one grade of the order, if the other grades of the order maintain their categories then there's not a good reason to delete this. Further, without deleting Category:Order of Civil Merit members the members of this category will just appear in the parent category anyways. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not if we made the logical decision that these categories should only be applied where it is notable to the individuals, and that foreign heads of state who have never attended a meeting have no notable connection to the award or the order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article on this order, this grade is not restricted to foreigners or heads of state. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category, as it is being used as a diplomatic honour to foreign royalty and politicians; in this case heads of state. Listify if necessary: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for the individual. —dainomite 07:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to Category: Comedic science fiction television and parent into "Category:Comic science fiction" and the television genre tree. There is currently no TV subcategory in "Comic science fiction", and the contents of this category appear to be TV (except Galaxy Quest, which would be moved to the film category) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we already have a films and a novels subcategory of that category. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Friendship (Kazakhstan)[edit]
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:listify then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category is generally given to people who just collect awards, such as Ban Ki-moon. The first person in the category is Valdas Adamkus who is in 25 award categories. This is just out of control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete; I have considered the discussion regarding Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia)here in closing this discussion. May I suggest that in the future, such related categories be nominated for deletion together? Having two separate, parallel discussions on consecutive days muddied the waters considerably, which I suspect led to the significant delay in the closing of these discussions.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is an especially egregious case. Not only does it have the same problem of having been given to people who get way too many other awards, and even without awards will often be in 30 categories (that is the number of categories Dwight D. Eisenhower was in last I checked, and he is currently in no award category, and it is also only that low because I removed a few other overlap categories). This category also 1-lacks any corresponding article. 2-is for not a truly national level award (which really is not a good gauge for these types of awards, since that gauge has lead to Akihito being in 59 or so awards cateogries), but is a sub-national award. Monarchs should be classified by where there were monarchs, not by the 50+ other places that gave then an award, or in this case not by their own country giving them an award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge this is just a grade of the order, of which you did not nominate for deletion. I fail to see why we would delete just one grade of the honor as Category:Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia) would still exist, and the people are still members of the order, and would still therefore be categorized. This is a proper subcategorization of the order. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other sub-cat has been nominated for deletion as well. Both the people in this category are also in that category. These people do not need to be in either award cat. If really needed a list can sum these things up much better than a category. Categories should be for defining things about a person, not for awards, especially when all the winners of a particular award have been given lots of other awards. It is not at all useful to have people in 20+ award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started thoses categories recently. Pages about royal internal families of Malaysia are still to be build. There might be more members latter after creation of articles. Mimich (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify per nom. DexDor (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Cross of the Order of the Sun[edit]
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 conesnsus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale these are two more categories that just lead to uncontrolled overcategorization by award. This is the exact thing the rule against most award categories is meant to prevent. This has really gotten out of hand. we have over 200 categories of awards that are primarily given out to rulers, heads of state and members of royal families. I really question whether we need any of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are valid subcategories of Category:Recipients of the Order of the Sun (Peru), which you did not nominate for deletion, so there's no reason not to subcategorize Category:Recipients of the Order of the Sun (Peru). Since you didn't nominate the entire category tree for this award, but singled out some grades of the award, this makes little sense. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other three awards have also been nominated for deletion. On the other hand, it does make sense to single out grades that have generally been given to heads of states and their consorts. In fact, it was by following that tree that I came up with this an several other nominations. When we have people in the category who are in 50+ award categories, something is broken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the other categories have subsequently been nominated for deletion, my objection has been addressed. Your concern is the primary function of categories WP:OC#DEFINING. If the category is not defining for the article then it shouldn't be categorized in it. We have many articles that could fall into thousands of categories, but we only categorize them into the defining ones. Just because it is not defining for some of the people in the category does not make the category overcatorization, until you sort out all the non-definined articles, and see how many articles remain where it is defining (and how many other articles exist on Wikipedia which have not been categorized but should be into the category for which it is defining). -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I try to remove 30+ non-defining to Eisenhower categories from his article, they get put back in. Arguing "this category is not defining to this person" does not seem to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge of heads of state etc. -- This one has been awarded to some other people, possibly only ambassadors to Peru. Listify if necessary befire deleting: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is another award given to heads of state and the like. This leads to way to much category clutter. We should not be categorizing people by the 50+ awards they are given. I am not exaggerating either, some people are in over 50 awards cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is just a grade in the order, and you've not nominated other grades, or the order category itself, Category:Order of the Elephant, therefore this just results in people being categorized in the higher level category. If were're deleting a grade of the order, why aren't we deleting all grades of the order? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding the one entry Category:Officers of the Order of Elephant to this nomination. Having the parent category, which can hold articles on the order itself, does not force us to have the child category for holders. Especially when the holders are foreign royals and other heads of states or their family members, people who have way too many awards categories to start with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As my concern has been addressed, I'm withdrawing my objection on that basis. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the one article in Category:Officers of the Order of Elephant makes no mention to the person being such in the text of the article. I have my doubts that a private secretary like Henning Fode is notable, but even if Fode is notable, the fact that there is no mention of holding this postion in the article should lead to a removal from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a Danish order. There is more than just foreign royalty in this. Many of them are Danish royalty. The officer is also a Dane. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But no where I Fode's article does it make any mention of this award. I would just remove Fode from the category, but generally that is doscoraged if it will empty the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Highest order of Denmark Christian75 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete both per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours articles. Being a recipient of these honours is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
35 of the 158 are Danish. That is very low. Even for the Danish people most are notable for being members of the roayl family, not for the specific exact awards they were given. We already have a well developed list that groups people both by the monatrch who issued this award to them and by nationality. I see nothing gained from also having the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John[edit]
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:do not delete; some rumblings about a potential rename in the future. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is another award that is largely granted to heads of state. Categories should illustrate significant things a person did, and basic biographical information, thus birth, death, occupation and such are good categories. Receiving an award, especially when it is just a recogniztion of them being notable and not for some specific accomplishment, is a really horrible way to categorize people. So much so we have separated out the lists of awards for some people because they have so many that it would clutter an article. It clutters categorization even more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is just a grade in the order, there are many other categories for other grades, it doesn't make sense to delete one grade when thre are so many other grades in the Category:Order of St John -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But this is the level of the order given to people who are sovereign heads of state, consorts or close family members. For these people an award of this type will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, this is a type of citizenship, where you may obtain a passport. Instead you should just consider collapsing all members post Malta-expulsion by Napoleon into a set of citizenship categories. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Order of St John is unfortuantely a dabpage, so that I am not clear if this is the formerly Maltese order. I think this is being awarded as an interantional mark of distinction, and is not caught by my test of excluding diplomatic awards: see my comments on Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category seems to have merged people from both together. I removed one person who was obviously connected with the Venerable Order of Saint John and not the group the category heading points to, and I checked two others and found in their long list of 15 or so honors mention of this, the others I have no clue yet if they belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It's a bit outside my expertise. Mimich (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is currently mixing people given awards by both The Venerable Order of Saint John and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Pope Benedict XVI is in the later group. However having looked at King Hussein of Jordan's listing of awards, I am not sure why it makes any sense to categorize him by all of them. This is clearly a mess. I would argue though that neither award is truly defining for any recipient. The fact that people have not noticed that some of these people are in a totally wrong category just goes to show how peripheral to the notability of these people this category is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the category is kept it needs to be renamed to end the two unlike things being categorized as the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In general there is confusion between various Orders of St John (and similar). I had it on my "to do" list to try to sort out the confusion of associated categories, but until the issue of whether or not categories are a valid way of linking odm recipients has been resolved, it's probably best left alone. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational This category has one entry Olav V of Norway. Olav is in 45 or so awards categories (and probably too many to be useful non-award categories). There is no reason to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge to Category:Knights of the Thistle , this is one grade of an order with many grades, but upmerging to the category that does not distinguish between honorary or non-honorary would solve the smallcat problem. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this is just an honorary inclusion. It is sort of like how we have Category:Harvard University alumni but limit it to regular alumni, and neither categorize honorary alumni as alumni nor have a separate category for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess maybe I should have linked to WP:OC#Awards but I thought it was understood that this was the relevant issue. Also of interest is [User:DexDor/AwardCat] which I think explains very well why these categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Honorary order is probably being given to foreign heads of state. Category:Knights of the Thistle is a British award, mainly to its own citizens. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for a solution is needed, before, on the listifying/categorizing of orders in general). A global solution is to be built on the matter. Let's organize it and make guidelines for the future. The placement of a warning could be helpful, in the meanwhile. Comments : See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath for the "honorary element". It is far less used for foreigners than the Order of the Garter. Mimich (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Crosses of Royal Order of Sahametrei[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There is only one person in this category, and he is in something like 16 other awards categories. This is unreasonable category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge the other grades of this order have not been nominated for deletion, neither has Category:Recipients of Royal Order of Sahametrei, so the order recipients category would still exist. Upmerging would solve the smallcat problem. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collars of the Order of the Chrysanthemum[edit]
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 Wikipedia categorization should not serve as a place to indicate what sort of international diplomacy was carried on by one state given the head of another state an award. That is essentially what this category does, with the addition of a few top people in Japan being given the award (along with 50+ others in the case of Akihito). This has lead to excessive category clutter. We need to put a stop to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is just one grade in the order, and neither Category:Recipients of the Order of the Chrysanthemum nor the other grades have been nominated for deletion. IT does not make sense to delete on grade of the order, as the persons will just be categorized into the recipients category. This is a valid subcategorization of the recipients category, so there's no reason to delete it. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AddCategory:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Chrysanthemum to this nomination. This is not a question of award practices, but of categorization. Receiving this award is not notable to the people involved. The received lots and lots of awards, and none of them are key to their notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not excluvisely a diplomatic award: there are some internal to Japan. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Extra Knights Companion of the Garter[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The entirety of this category are male royals from countries other than Britain. This is a category that will get attached to people who are already in other categories. Among the entries are Haile Selassie I who is in 50 award categories. This is just too many. It creates a wall of text in the categories space that prevents people from learning anything useful. People should be categorized by notable things about them, and being given awards like this is clearly not it. We really need to cut award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That similar category has now also been nominated for deletion. Since this is a category of foreign royals for whom the appointment of this position is not notable, having it is not the same issue as other order of the garter categories. Categories are supposed to only categorize notable traits for people, thus Category:Skateboarders does not include everyone who has ever used a skateboard for whom we have an article, and in the same way, the Order of the Garter category does not need to include members for whom it was an honrary and trivial appointment, when it was just one of 50 plus awards they received. With someone like Akihito I am not exagreating by saying 50 awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that this award is not at all defining to its recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha. On what basis / for what reasons, (citing which sources), would you argue that? And what circumstances would cause you to argue that? Saying "I would argue that this award is not at all defining to its recipients", without explaining what you would argue, or why you would argue it, is just empty noise. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:COP#N. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —dainomite 07:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of Vietnam[edit]
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: among the people in this category is Haile Selassie I. He is in 50 awards categories. He received national awards from about another dozen countries that we fortunantely do not have. This is the type of category clutter the rule against award categories is supposed to end. We should not have these awards that are handed out like candy to foreign dignitaries as categories. This is just excessive and leads to way to much category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this order was only awarded by South Vietnam, a country that no longer exists, and existed only for a short time, so there would only be a few people in this category. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it won't. If we decided that this is not a notable characteristic of these people, we just do not add them to the categories involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought it was a nonnotable order, you should have nominated the recipients category, this nomination does not indicate that, only that a grade category should be deleted, whereupon its contents would be dumped, correctly, into the recipients category. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I already tried a system : Use, in the second part of the category instruction, the numbers 1 to 5 to identify the grade and follow by the name classification. Result in the Category:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam. Is it a solution for gradification when there is a little members in a category ? But that wouldn't help diminish the number of category lines. 1 line "recipient" = 1 line "Grand Crosses" Mimich (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename for now; the article name is not currently under discussion, but if it changes, this category can also be renamed via the speedy section. Good Ol’factory(talk) 19:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Coulda speedied this as a C2D though. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Ici" is a branding and promotion issue, but isn't actually the name, per the large amount of coverage on the issue in Quebec French language newspapers. We should also use English. Category:French-sector CBC television Radio-Canada is called CBC in English. Though personally, I prefer SRC, but it seems to have fallen out of use; the "Ici station Radio-Canada" chime was melodic. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Spelling error. Individual's name is inconsistent in sources, but contemporary sources I've looked at prefer Krugers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably can be done as a speedy as you're the only editor on the category too. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, though I agree that this could have been speedied as a simple spelling correction instead of having to go through a full week of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia)[edit]
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.
However, none of the arguments to keep have addressed the elephant in the room—namely, that not a single article about a recipient of the Bravery Medal or the Cross of Valour appears to exist. Therefore, the issue we face is not that the categories are merely underpopulated, but rather that we have no articles with which to populate them. None of the five recipients of the Cross of Valour have an article, and neither Special:WhatLinksHere nor multiple searches uncovered an article about any one the 1,104 recipients of the Bravery Medal.
In accordance with the established policy of not retaining empty categories with the anticipation that they might be populated eventually, the default outcome is to speedy deleteCategory:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia) and Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Australia) at this time. When at least one biography is identified that could be categorized, then the categories should be recreated without any need for additional discussion or deletion review. I think that an article about a medal should not be categorized with articles about recipients of the medal—the medal should be linked from the category description, but the medal itself is not a recipient—but that is a moot point in this case since we have no articles about recipients to speak of. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories do not (currently) contain any articles about recipients of the awards. Note: My edits to remove articles about the medals themselves from these categories have been reverted by the category creator. DexDor (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's rationale is pretty much irrelevant to decision about whether to keep the categories. If some articles shouldn't be in the category, then they should be removed; and if we have articles medal recipients, they should be added. The fact that the category has not yet been populated is no reason to delete it. If the nom has a valid reason for deletion, I will consider it, but so far this looks a clear keep. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it seems reasonable to me to include the article about the medal as the main article, but less reasonable to have a category if no notable recipients can be found. I did find a recipient for the 2nd one; but is the equivalent of 'mentioned in dispatches' defining? I didn't find anyone for the first one and doubt if it is defining. For the 3rd one, which has only been awarded 5 times to real people, this does seem defining but none of the 5 has an article and perhaps none is notable ("one event"). There is a fictional recipient, Chris Blake. Oculi (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep 1st & 3rd - per Peacemaker (& Oculi). I have also just created Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Brave Conduct (Australia), however, this time I've made sure I've found a recipient with which to commence populating it. As BrownHairedGirl says, the fact that the other categories have not been populated yet is insufficient reason to delete them. I'll be a bit surprised if there isn't at least one notable person out of the 1,104 on List of Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia). Of the 34 recipients of the Commendation for Gallantry listed in the "It's an Honour" database, many have not yet had their names released (which, as is intended, makes it "difficult" to identify them!) Regarding Cross of Valour (Australia), I'll do some more investigating before commenting further. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- These are national awards. I would suggest that the award may be sufficient to make the recipients notable by virtue of having the award. Certainly, any person awarded the Victoria Cross or George Cross in UK would be notable due merely to that award. Such medals are given very sparingly, so that we should not expect a large population. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will just lead to even more overcategorization by award. We do not need this. We really need to massively go on a purging of awards. We allow way, way way too many. Look at Douglas MacArthur he is currently in 32 awards categories. He is probably not even the extreme in the number of awards. We need to start massively cutting out awards categories, they are messing things up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2nd one only as very unlikely to make a recipient notable on its own (as said above, roughly equivalent to MID, it is a badge on a riband rather than a medal). CV is the highest Australian decoration for civilian bravery (equiv to George Cross), recipients are highly likely to meet WP:GNG, and they are appropriately redlinked in the article IMO. Most have been featured in multiple newspaper and magazine articles over the years since their awards, and it is a matter of time until a WP article is written on them. The BM is third in the civilian bravery honours list in Aust, less likely to make the person notable on its own, although many recipients are interviewed by newspapers and so on, and may meet WP:GNG on that basis. I agree with BHG in respect of the 1st and 3rd ones, do not delete them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peacemaker (& Oculi) - nicely summarised and presented. I agree with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the medal and the cross. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. The commendation, however, is too minor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is described as "A critical ancestor through whom many descendants can trace their ancestry."". "many" is subjective and I'm not sure that having many descendents is really a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. For info: There is currently no article about gateway ancestors. DexDor (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gateway ancestors are by definition WP:notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (Note: User:Kittybrewster is the Category creator.) Cgingold (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there is perhaps a good case to be made for having such a category, I must say I am flummoxed by the use it has been put to. Neither of the 2 articles currently included is about an individual who is him or herself a so-called "gateway ancestor". Rather, they are about people who happen to be descendants of such individuals. Which is to say, it would be better termed as Category:Descendants of gateway ancestors -- something that would surely not pass muster. I am surprised and mystified that an experienced editor such as yourself would make such a puzzling error in the application of categories; what were you thinking, Kittybrewster? Cgingold (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see how we can have a category without a head article, and I very much doubt that 'gateway ancestor' can be properly defined. 'Descendants of gateway ancestors' would presumably be an enormous category. Oculi (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Reading up on "gateway ancestor" shows that it it is always contextual; it is the gateway into a particular group. For example, to claim membership in the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne you need to trace a line back to one of the established descendants of the emperor, and those descendants are the "gateway ancestors" to showing that someone else is also a descendant. Therefore there is no abstract category of gateway ancestors any more than there is a category of things that are west. In references to the example group they publish a list of gateway ancestors so that there is a certain arbitrariness to the category— not that anyone may be included, but that not all possible ancestors may be listed (considering that descent from any member of the society is presumably sufficient to qualify for membership as well). Seyasirt (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A gateway ancestor is a person whose ancestry is available in readily available genealogical sources. That ancestor is usually someone connected to nobility and royalty and thus provides a gateway for a genealogist to be able to trace many more ancestors. Being a gateway ancestor from somebody else cannot be notable. At present the category has two members. One is an American who has a gateway ancestor called John Throckmorton, who is not even linked in the article. The other is a Dutch noble, who happens to be the gateway ancestor for the present Swedish royal family (who only became royal in the 1800s). This is quite clearly utterly random and thus no adequate basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that gateway ancestor is a redlink, suggesting it isn't even a notable term. I certainly don't think it's a defining characteristic for categorising people by. If the nominator's description - 'a critical ancestor through whom many descendants can trace their ancestry' - is taken literally, this would belong on thousands of pages, as most historical royals and leaders would qualify. Robofish (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not defining to the people involved. Generally we try to limit categories to things that happened to people during their life, not how they are used as intermediaries in larger studies of ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-qualifying Indianapolis 500 drivers[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete (because users have expressed interest in creating a list, this will be placed at WP:CFDWM. The category will be deleted once the list has been created.Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for: "Drivers that have entered and/or attempted to qualify for the Indianapolis 500, but have never qualified in their entire career, includes drivers that were either bumped, too slow, or incomplete qualifying attempt. Also includes drivers that participated in Rookie Orientation only, as well as drivers that withdrew during practice, or participated in practice, but did not make a qualifying attempt.". That may just be suitable inclusion criteria for a list, but it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for a category - racing drivers are (in the long term) notable for what they have achieved. The "have never qualified in their entire career" is ambiguous - does it mean career-to-date in which case this is a non-permanent characteristic, or does it mean entire career in which case articles shouldn't go in the category until there is no possibility of the driver ever qualifying ? Note: There is no tree of "Non-qualifiers" categories for this to fit under. DexDor (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should never categorise anyone by what they have not achieved. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts. We don't categorise people by what they are not. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous remarks, and possibly convert to a List. If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, I believe there was a category that was created & deleted many years ago for people who had run for political office but had failed to win election. Perhaps in the near future, a category for failed Indy 500 drivers who also failed to win election?? :) Cgingold (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Delete but Convert to List The category may seem "insignificant" to those not directly familiar with the topic, and may seem as a meaningless list of "non achievers," but that is deceiving to the topic at hand, as due to the nature of qualifying at the Indianapolis 500 numerous notable (per WP Nobility guidelines) participants do fail to qualify, and failure to qualify is a significant story. Per precident at List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race, I would not necessarily have a problem with the category going away, but instead converting it to a list (the length is significant enough already...117, and that actually represents an abridged list, as not all names are known). Doctorindy (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info you've provided. As I indicated, I'm open to having this converted to a list, and knowing that there is an analagous list for Formula One drivers bolsters the case for doing so. Do you know if there are any other comparable lists for other major races? Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Listify; certainly delete. We might list failures, but we certainly should not ahve a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of category that leads to massive category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
