< September 10 September 12 >

September 11

Category:Pornographic male actors

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (deletion at request of creator, i.e. User:Liz). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, recent creation, presumably by someone who didn't realise Category:Male pornographic film actors‎ already exists. Robofish (talk) 22:41, 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.

Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Elizabeth

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]
  • 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]
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

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]
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

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]
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]
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 Chinese descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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]
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you created some of these categories you are proposing to delete, John Pack Lambert, so I guess you have changed your mind about their value? I saw this when I went to notify the category creators of these CfD discussions and it appeared that in several instances, you were the creator. Liz Read! Talk! 11:09, 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]
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]
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

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]
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since Category:Actors from Pennsylvania is currently being discussed at CfD, you do not even need to make a nomination to express your dislike for such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 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]
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.

Jewish American actors

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]
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]
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. Liz Read! 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]
Well, you better get started on proposing all of the 40 subcategories in Category:Jews by occupation and 28 subcategories in Category:People by occupation and ethnicity be deleted as well. That will be a lot of work. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 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]
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 Italian descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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]
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]
Go read the CfD discussions that can be linked from going to Category:Italian-American actors. This has been deleted multiple times. there has been a decision against most intersections of European ethnicities and occupations. Look at the discussions that lead to the deletion of Category:American musicians of Italian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 13 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]
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)

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]
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

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]
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)

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]
Why is the article on a queen of Denmark at User talk:Margaretha Hendriks-Ririmasse? I found this as an oddlooking member of this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 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.

Category:Grand Commanders of the Order of the Federal Republic (Nigeria)

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]
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

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]
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

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]
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

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

Category:Order of Saints Olga and Sophia

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]
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

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]
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]
What part of WP:CIVIL do you not understand? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 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]
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

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]
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]
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

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]
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]
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:Science fiction comedies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Comic science fiction. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A scheme for Category:Comic science fiction already exists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:18, 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.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Friendship (Kazakhstan)

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]
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

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]
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

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]
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]
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 of the Elephant

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]
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]
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]
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

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]
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]
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 Knights of the Thistle

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]
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]
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

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]
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

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 10 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 Knights Companion of the Garter

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]
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]
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]
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

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 to Category:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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:Télévision de Radio-Canada

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]
Nominator's rationale: New official name, see Ici Radio-Canada Télé ViperSnake151  Talk  17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Coulda speedied this as a C2D though. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 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:Films directed by G. Kruger

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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)

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: mixed. There is a rough consensus that the Bravery Medal and Cross of Valour are sufficiently defining, and the Commendation for Gallantry is not. This would suggest an outcome to delete Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Gallantry and to keep Category:Recipients of the Bravery Medal (Australia) and Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Australia).
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 delete Category: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]
  • Thanks Peacemaker (& Oculi) - nicely summarised and presented. I agree with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:32, 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:Gateway ancestors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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

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]
  • 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]
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.
More