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) 21:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:High Frame Rate films to Category:High frame rate films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2D: High frame rate. Trivialist (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being non-defining and per a previous consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining, per the past consensus against contextually similar categories noted by Lugnuts. No objection to listing the films in high frame rate itself, if that's desired, but a category for them isn't necessary. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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) 21:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Churches by height (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-definining and largely uninteresting as a category. I can see a need for listing the tallest churches, and that a church is tallest could be defining. But being in one of these height ranges isn’t. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• note added sub-categories, as part of same nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Undefining save for exceptionally tall churches (and perhaps exceptionally small ones, although height is probably less important there than floor surface area), but that's a matter for a list at best not a series of categories. The fact that two churches may be in between two arbitrary heights tells us nothing about them taken together other than the coincidence of their height, unlike categorisation by location/denomination/year of construction etc. Bencherlite^Talk 22:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's going to be a bell curve with huge numbers of churches in the middle categories. Pointless. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there is reasonable value in having churches categorised by height. For many communities, particularly in the middle ages, the construction of the church was a considerable expense, and generally the higher the church, the more expensive it would be. Categorising by height will assist in making comparisons with other churches and communities which built churches on a similar scale. Also, it will enable comparison of styles of churches of a similar height, as there may be architectural features which are necessary to support buildings of particular heights. Andrewrabbott (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categorization in ten-foot increments is wild overkill, generates clutter and busy-work of little value. Eric ^talk 13:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - I can see this as a research topic, but since height is subjective in architecture (for example, do we include certain structure types or ornamentations?), and because churches can have multiple towers and such of varying heights, this should probably be listified to be able to clarify such things. - jc37 15:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many lists of churches already exist: see the category Category:Lists of churches, its members and sub categories. If the height of them is interesting, and available, it could be added to such articles. But there is no point creating a list or many lists by heights; there is no relation between the height of a thousand year old church in Europe and a hundred year old one in the US, it‘s just a numerical coincidence. Besides comprehensive lists would be far too long; they would have to be broken down by e.g. geography which would end up largely duplicating the lists and categories that already exist. So just add the data to those lists, if it is worth adding.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some churches are defined by their height and List of tallest church buildings in the world or List of highest church naves do a good job grouping them. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Don't Listify Category:Churches between 70 and 80 feet high‎? I assumed this was for really tall churches, not a range to categorize all churches. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No objection against adding height to existing lists, per JohnBlackburne. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This information is best covered in sourced lists and not categories. Or else we could have categories that constantly need clean-up. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of these churches is notable for being between one height and another; trivial statistics. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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; brings entire category tree into same format, so in a sense, this is an "uncontroversial" C2B/C2C change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Comoros to Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the Comoros

Nominator's rationale: Following the closure of this discussion a short time ago, I am nominating the rest of the Comorian categories for renaming to have the "the" added to them. The basic issue is that "Comoros" is a plural word, shorthand for the Comoro Islands – The country's official name is "The Union of the Comoros"; "the" is included as it would be in a United States category (e.g. Category:Presidents of the United States). Number 57 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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, though the rationales were split. Some wanted to keep on the merits, others wanted to keep and close the discussion because they thought that the nomination was simply attempting to make a WP:POINT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Under the new interpretation currently applied to categories for orders of merit, these categories (with sub categories) should obviously also be deleted, per e.g. this discussion[1] and other precedent.

For example, the categories for Norway's preeminent order of merit, the Order of St. Olav (almost exclusively given to Norwegian citizens by the King for actual merits and usually the only decoration they hold) was recently deleted with all its sub categories[2]; the Order of St. Olav is Norway's equivalent of the Order of the British Empire. The same applies to the orders of merit of dozens of other countries. British orders can be no exception. Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the list above. Note: the categories listed above have not been tagged (is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT rather than really wanting these categories deleted?) DexDor ^(talk) 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed want these ridiculous-sounding categories deleted, based on the current consensus as applied to the awards of every single other country. Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to place a ((CFD)) on the categories linking to this discussion. DexDor ^(talk) 05:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous-sounding? Sounds like you want them deleted because you don't agree with the awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete .... The purpose of categories is mainly (we also have some categories for administrative reasons) to group together similar pages (e.g. pages about people who are notable in the same field). Categories such as Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire group together, for example Akito Arima and Bono - those articles are in other categories (e.g. Category:Irish singer-songwriters) which do group together articles about similar topics. The awards someone has received can be listed in their article, but if you want to create a database mapping people with awards then WikiData is the place to go - that way the mapping can be referenced. ... or procedurally oppose as the nomination fails to consider pages such as List of Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath which would need to be upmerged. DexDor ^(talk) 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about categories for people born in the same town, born or died in the same year, educated at the same institution, etc, etc, etc? We have thousands of categories like this that group together people who are not notable in the same field. Why single these categories out? Being a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire is actually far more defining than having written something once (and therefore being categorised as a writer) or having played cricket for England once (and being categorised as an England cricketer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OSE. DexDor ^(talk) 17:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh please! OSE is not meant to be used to justify why a few categories should be deleted when thousands of similar categories exist and have been created by experienced, productive editors. It's generally a good rule for deleting cruft, but it's not intended to be a deletionist's charter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is utterly ludicrous. Most of these awards are extremely defining and significant. This should be perfectly obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense. If we delete these categories then what on earth is the point of categories at all? Should be procedurally closed anyway unless the nominator is going to put Cfd notifications on every category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice the nominator's rationale is based on some other categories being deleted. Note that these categories were deleted without consensus and should be reinstated. There is currently a deletion review on the subject: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 28. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For quite some time now (at least a year or so it appears), the awards of all other countries than Britain have regularly been massively deleted based on a new policy interpretation, affecting tens of thousands of articles if not more, so it is obviously not the case that this is just a matter of one single deletion discussion gone wrong, but of a new systematic application of the relevant policy on a grand scale. Also, I don't see the Order of St. Olav mentioned in the deletion review. The Order of St. Olav is the single most important Norwegian order for scientific, cultural and other achievements by Norwegian citizens, with the same role as the Order of the British Empire, the Order of the Bath etc. combined, and it was deleted based on the new policy interpretation. Obviously, the same is the case with huge amounts of awards from countless other countries than Britain as well. So the precedent is clear, even massive, when it comes to awards such as the ones listed above. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no "new policy interpretation". There's a lot of misinterpretation gone on in Cfds that most editors didn't spot and which weren't publicised to those who might have had a contrary opinion. Of course the Order of St Olav categories shouldn't have been deleted and hopefully the deletion review will lead to all these misguided category deletions being overturned. There should never have been a mass deletion of these important categories based on the say-so of a handful of editors (and there was little consensus to delete even then from what I've seen). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination based on a idiosyncratic idea of "defining" and a shaky previous consensus. Overturn all previous award deletions and start again with a well-publicized and clear policy proposal so that a community consensus may be achieved. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure I quite understand the nomination, though. I assume it's being done under WP:DEFINING, but why, for example, would anyone think Category:Australian Knights Bachelor‎ is not defining? More than anything else, it defines who a person is - they go around with "Sir" in front of their name... StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OCAWARD which is more specific. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:OCAWARD doesn't say very much, and it only applies "when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic". Now, I can understand the definition you hint at below ("if people only got the award because they were already notable for something else") but (a) it seems to confuse something being defining with something contributing to notability; and (b) I don't think this interpretation of "defining" has community consensus. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you think would make an award defining? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. An award is defining is if it referred to in biographical summaries of the subject in reliable sources. That automatically includes anything with postnominals. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think our viewpoints are too far off then but I would use caution before using CVs, press releases, obituaries and resumes as reliable biographies. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep being awarded an honour that confers the honorific of Sir or Dame is quite defining, particularly in the culture of the United Kingdom and its former colonial empire. It would make little sense to delete the related categories. EricSerge (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose Based on the nominator's comments above, this appears to be WP:POINT not a serious nomination. Please submit a recreation nomination of Order of St. Olav category and we can discuss your actual concern. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all because, in general, these characteristics are defining and are appropriately mentioned in the lead of the articles. If there are people for whom an award is non defining the article can be removed from a category. If an award is not defining for anyone (or for so few people as to make a category unnecessary) and if a well-populated list article exists, the category could be deleted per WP:OCAWARD. However, this can only reliably be done after due diligence has been used to select the particular categories of relevance. Thincat (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all I totally agree with Necrothesp To delete these categories would go against the entire ethos of the categorisation principle. It's a ludicrous idea which shouldn't even any credence whatever. Rcb1 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)rcb1Rcb1 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep All: as @Necrothesp points out "Most of these awards are extremely defining and significant. This should be perfectly obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense. If we delete these categories then what on earth is the point of categories at all? Should be procedurally closed anyway unless the nominator is going to put Cfd notifications on every category."
  For myself, this is ridiculous overkill. There may be a few honorary categories that are not overly important but these select categories represent honours given those who have qualified. Yes there are some people who received honours that they really didn't deserve and a lot more who did not get their due. Those of us who look forward (or used to look forward) to mid-June and the last days of December to see who was named Knight Bachelor or Dame beat ourselves up about these injustices. But all in all, these categories are important and no one has managed to prove otherwise. If non-Brits (and I am not a Brit, btw), particularly Norwegians, have not fought or did not fight for their honours-related categories which were deleted, what has that to do with the British honours system, warts and all? EXCESSIVE USE OF THE GUILLOTINE HERE. Quis separabit? 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Delete the MBE? Really? Someone should trout the nominator. Companions of the Order of St Michael and St George has 1,147 articles listed. This is what categories are for! If there are one or two in that pile that are questionable, then consider them on a case by case basis, but for now speedy close this before we waste more bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 07:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Nominator's rationale seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, nominator's motive seems to be WP:POINT.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a year of deleting most similar awards for other countries, and hundreds if not thousands of such categories, and removing them from tens of thousands of biographies, there is an extremely clear precedent and consensus to delete such award categories as "Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George‎" and "Ceylonese Officers of the Order of the British Empire‎". The only pointy outcome would be to keep only the British awards, while deleting those from other countries, which would send a blatantly British chauvinist message. Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The only pointy outcome would be to keep only the British awards, while deleting those from other countries, which would send a blatantly British chauvinist message." -- NO!! If other editors, Norwegians or whomever else, did not care sufficiently to keep their countries'-related honours, that was their apathy. It's telling that so few noticed. The British honours system is different -- in any event, WP:IAR. WP:IAR. WP:IAR. WP:IAR. WP:IAR. Quis separabit? 21:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at previous discussions, it is clear that there were opposing votes, typically from people from the countries concerned. But mostly American editors were in the majority and decided to delete all those Dutch, Norwegian etc awards anyway, forming an apparent consensus here at the English Wikipedia in respect to such award categories. The past discussions in the last year all seem to result in the deletions of all proposed categories. I don't see why British awards are any different from other countries' awards. Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Perhaps consensus has shifted in another direction since it has now come to the attention of a wider cross section of the community? The prior consensus, before the recent systemic deletions, provided for their inclusion. There is no reason that it cannot shift back the other direction. I am not saying that this precedent was specifically established by deleting less watched categories first in an effort to manufacture precedent, but from the outside looking in, that is how it appears to me. EricSerge (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, @EricSerge. Thanks for articulating it. Quis separabit? 21:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • @EricSerge and Rms125a@hotmail.com: The only bad faith here is with this nomination which is explicitly for WP:POINT. The constructive path forward would be to nominate the Norwegian category for recreation, not to stir up editors with this parody of the earlier nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is true that the previous consensus "before the recent systemic deletions" provided for their inclusion, but it is also true that the consensus and interpretation of the relevant policy evidently has changed in the last year after countless mass deletions of awards of numerous countries, which are those countries' exact equivalents of the currently discussed British award categories. I have no idea of whether someone intended to "manufacture" this new consensus by concentrating on non-British awards during the last year, because I have not been involved in any of those discussions. Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you were not involved in CFDing "non-British awards", yet here you are trying to delete scores of British honours-related categories. Interesting, indeed.

This is BS. If you take out a guy's appendix, do you also have to remove the rest of his organs? WP:IAR. Quis separabit? 21:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should British awards be exempt from the consensus in respect to award categories applied to all other countries' awards? Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because, and for the third time: if other editors, Norwegians or whomever else, did not care sufficiently to keep their own countries honours, that was their apathy. (It's telling that so few noticed.) That does not impinge on other countries (i.e. UK) which care more or are less apathetic about such things. Try to delete the Croatians' awards, just try and see what happens, just for example. Quis separabit? 22:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't, it was a majority decision of mostly American and other non-Norwegian editors, in fact with opposition from the Norwegian editor who took part when Norway's most important award was deleted (I don't think the categories were even tagged, as we have been told is required, so how would Norwegian editors even notice?). And this isn't a case of just one award, but of a systematic new policy interpretation over a whole year that has already resulted in the removal of vast amounts of such categories from tens of thousands of articles. I have noticed such categories being systematically removed from articles since last year. If the consensus is about to change, it is a little late and reinstating all those other now deleted categories would require almost unthinkable effort. Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The categories were tagged, that's why the alerts appeared on WikiProject Norway. (FYI, the lack of an alert doesn't prove an article was not tagged; it's more likely the category talk page didn't have the WikiProject on it to generate the alert.)RevelationDirect (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if Norwegian Wikipedians were screwed, you should make things right and challenge the deletions or do whatever is needed to be done. I don't know the steps to challenge such deletions but if you wanted to reopen the debates and notify Norwegian Wikipedians, I am sure you know how to do so. I absolutely oppose double standards. I will support you every step of the way howsoever I can. I am sorry if Americans were involved in that decision making. I would never take it upon myself to vote against the notability of another country's honours system as I am ignorant of such things and cannot feel what someone from another country or culture would feel for his or her own native country's honours or awards. But two wrongs don't make a right. And I am telling you that I strongly doubt that other groups (Indians, Russians, Serbs, Croats, Japanese etc.) are going to let it fly, either. The entire system may be fundamentally unfair but you're not going to fix it this way. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Request @Bjerrebæk: I understand missing the alert on WikiProject Norway and notices on category pages. My watchlist is so long it's become unworkable so I miss things too. Please nominate the Norwegian category for recreation so we can have a constructive conversation and withdraw whatever this is. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the editor who nominated these seven categories for deletion (Order of St. Olav, Knights Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of St. Olav, Knights Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olav (pre-1906 restructure), Commanders with Star of the Order of St. Olav, Commanders of the Order of St. Olav, Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav, Knights of the Order of St. Olav) is not an American; he is Dutch per his talk page. Quis separabit? 11:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These are awards given out as part of diplomacy and other recognition of the recognized. They are not defining to the individuals. Having these categories will often just lead to recreating the awards section of the article as a set of categories. This leads to category clutter, and needlessly duplicates the awards section where sources, dates and context can be provided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they're defining to the individuals. See above. Awards purely given out by heads of state for diplomatic reasons may not be, but none of these awards fall into that category. They are given to real people for real achievement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Churchill Society, London, and for better or for worse: "The Royal family and the British Honours system are the root causes of the English class system. Both concepts evolved from the mists of our ancient history and should therefore not be discarded or amended without a very great deal of thought. Many people consider both to be stabilising features of our national life ..." Quis separabit? 12:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is borderline absurd and a good example of why so many people ridicule Wikipedia. Of course it's fine to add these as categories to individuals, it's probably more useful and encyclopedic than Category:People from Washington County, Indiana, say (no disrespect to the fine County of Washington in Indiana, naturally....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How can you get more defining than something that, when awarded, changes the subject's name? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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, though there is also consensus that list articles would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:ICM Plenary and Invited Speakers by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting all subcategories (all tagged):

• Category:ICM 1897 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:ICM 1900 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:ICM 1904 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:ICM 1908 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:ICM 1912 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:ICM 2010 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:ICM 2014 Plenary and Invited Speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OC#PERF - categorising mathematicians by the year(s) in which they addressed a mathematical congress is a "performer by performance" approach, and is generally handled better by lists. If kept, needs to be renamed to explain ICM. Bencherlite^Talk 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bencherlite, I am frankly baffled by this nomination by you (an experienced and credible contributor by all means). Being a Plenary and Invited Speaker at any ICM is almost certainly the second highest honor in mathematics (only second to being a Fields Medalist). I am also more amazed that no one thought of creating a category for the speakers till I did it. I have spent a awful amount of time on this, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built maybe.

The subcategories need to be kept separated for the sake of category clutter because combining them will result in a category of anything between 3000-4000 entries. I think this needs to be properly advertised in WP:MATHEMATICS. In the mean time I am pinging some people who I believe will be interested in this: Michael Hardy, David Eppstein, Suslindisambiguator, TakuyaMurata. Solomon7968 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is both a high honor in mathematics and defining, in the sense that if one puts together a one-paragraph precis of a mathematician's honors and accomplishments this will very likely be mentioned. I don't care about whether it's split into subcategories but I suspect the nominator doesn't either. I added another ping at WT:WPM. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If consensus is against you, then you're saved a lot of work by having the category creation process stopped before you've completed it. I notice you've created one further subcategory since this nomination started, and it's probably not a good idea to do this again. Struck with apologies, I obviously missed one in the original nomination process. And as for it being "defining" in Wikipedia categorisation terms - can something that at least 61 people did in 2010 (to go by the number of people in that category) really be "the second highest honor in mathematics"? Perhaps the reason nobody created a category for it before is that other people who might have done know that categories about speakers at conferences have been routinely deleted at CFD for years. Bencherlite^Talk 17:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)You are wrong about your first claim (wrote a reply on your talk page, hopefully you will removescratch it). The 2010 figures of 61 speakers covers the year range 2006-2010 (ICM happens once in four years as our WP article will tell you). 61/4 leaves around 15. Do you seriously claim 15 notable figures in an academic discipline of 2000+ year history is an overestimate? Solomon7968 17:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any evidence for your claim that being an invited speaker at the ICM conference is the second-highest honour a mathematician can be given? Bencherlite^Talk 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I don't have. My point was, there are other awards (Abel, Wolf etc.) which are on the same prestige level of the Fields Medal. The ICM speakers on the other hand vastly expands the number of mathematicians and are a level below the Fields. So on reflection "second-tier highest honour" for a mathematician would have been a good word choice. Solomon7968 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And once we start categorising by "second-tier" honours for academics, where do we stop? It's not a defining characteristic by the time you get to "second-tier" awards and honours. Let's take Andrew M. Stuart, for example (taken at random - actually the first one I took at random from the 2014 category was Daniel Wise (mathematician), which doesn't mention the ICM, suggesting the editors of that article don't think it particularly important). Stuart's article says he's been awarded six prizes and been an invited speaker at two conferences. So does he get eight additional categories? Bencherlite^Talk 20:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Re-)Read David Eppstein's comment above. It doesn't really matter what the amateur Categorization cabal thinks of about defining... if a professional mathematician can mention it in his one-paragraph precis, then we should also. Solomon7968 20:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • So is that a "yes" to my question about giving Wise eight award-related categories? As it happens, Wikipedia is entitled to (and does) set its own principles for categorisation of articles and not depend on asking itself questions such as "would the subject of the article mention this in a one-paragraph precis of his/her work and career"? You will have noticed by now that Wikipedia doesn't have categories for people invited to speak at this conference or that event or the other, and this is really no different, whether you look as it as a performer by performance issue or a non-defining award issue. Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You clearly have no clue, do you? Where did I mentioned Wise in my last post? This is NOT the place to discuss what category should/would go into individual articles. I was refuting your arguments about the "Defining" issue, arguments for which you have produced no external evidence. First you display your ignorance that the conference itself occurs "once every four years" (implying you didn't even bothered to read the lead of the conference article). Then you say "It's not a defining characteristic by the time you get to "second-tier" awards and honours" which is again totally unsupported by any evidence. Take for example our article Narendra Modi which has the following categories: "Prime Ministers of India" (Ist-tier), "Chief Ministers of Gujarat" (second-tier), "Lok Sabha members from Uttar Pradesh" (third-tier), "Members of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly" (fourth-tier). Do note number of prime ministers/presidents far outnumbers those of Fields Medalists. Solomon7968 11:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, insults. How charming. I'm not interested in discussing further with someone who resorts to calling me disruptive (on my talk page) and clueless (here), and who can't see the difference between jobs and awards. Bencherlite^Talk 11:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sigh. Stick to the facts, please. You are disrupting my (time-consuming) work; didn't accused of disruption of the encyclopedia in general. I note you still haven't shown any clue/evidence regarding your central claim that the award is non-defining. Solomon7968 11:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• from SuslinDisambiguator: I like the information, but I suggest that we put collapsible lists of the 1900 speakers, 1904 speakers, etc. into the Wikipedia page for International Congress of Mathematicians and then create a gigantic 1,000? entry category: International Congress of Mathematicians Plenary and Invited Speakers into each plenary or invited speaker's Wikipedia page. See what I put into the International Congress of Mathematicians page under ==See also==. My suggestion does leave an information gap. Perhaps there should be a macro such as mathematician_ICM|name|years that gives the congress years in which the mathematician was a plenary or invited speaker. Note that a mathematician who has been a plenary or invited speaker is somewhat like a botanist with his or her own author abbreviation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Botanists_with_author_abbreviations Being a plenary speaker or invited speaker seems to be more-or-less on a par with being elected to a prestigious academy of science. http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Societies/ICM.html
• Comment (1) Last years we have also European Congress of Mathematics, which makes it more controversial, where is the boundary between "Der Congress" and just a conference. (2) I have a kind of conflict of interests :-) I was an invited speaker on ICM 1998, which is not mentioned in "Boris Tsirelson". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I disagree with the nominator's rationale that this falls under WP:OC#PERF. That guideline concerns actors who played various roles. This is not that. Sławomir
  Biały 20:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed the reference to "orators" in the text of that guideline. It was used as a reason for deleting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 14#Category:TED speakers, for example. Bencherlite^Talk 20:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not seeing it. "Orator" is not a synonym for "research mathematician". The specific context you refer to concerns individuals who were "invited speakers" to TED Talks. This isn't that either. A more apt comparison would be Category:Nobel laureates in Physics or even Category:Medalists at the 1964 Winter Olympics, if we're going to be stretching rules to say things they don't. Sławomir
      Biały 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not even the category creator claims this is on a par with an Olympic medal or a Nobel prize. If you want to look at it as an award then it would still fail WP:OVERCAT, specifically WP:OCAWARD. Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that seems much more compelling. Sławomir
          Biały 23:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would say most things that can be handled by lists or categories are handled better by lists, which might also have somewhat different purposes, but if there is to be a system of categories, some things should be represented in that system even if they are handled better by lists. However, I have no particular position on this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The sample of articles I looked at didn't even mention the person being a speaker at ICM - e.g. the Gino Loria page doesn't mention 1904 but has been placed in a 1904 category - that's going beyond WP:DNWAUC. Categories like Category:19th-century Italian mathematicians (and by field of mathematics) do a better job of grouping similar mathematicians. DexDor ^(talk) 21:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amused. First you put up something for deletion while it is under construction, then you seek moratorium on further development citing a 7-day "consensus" period then you cite incomplete development as a reason for deletion. Solomon7968 21:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a basic principle that categories should be based on the text of the article so that they are verifiable. That's not the same as an incomplete category tree where some years have been completed but not others. My objection to the intention of the tree (to cover all invited speakers at the ICM) would remain whether the category tree had been completed or not, so there's no obligation to wait until all years have been completed before discussing objections to the principle. Particularly when the category tree was started in August 2013 and is still incomplete... Bencherlite^Talk 00:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Not mentioned in any of the articles I looked at, nowhere near being a defining category.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Being a plenary speaker is much rarer than being an invited speaker,[3] and it's a great honor for a mathematician (for example, look Emmy Noether#Recognition), and if the person is young it means a good chance of receiving a Fields Medal. We should maybe rename the categories to include only plenary speakers, which are the ones whose works the mathematical community regarded most highly. By the way, MacTutor judged it an honor important enough to justify having a list with its main speakers by year: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Societies/ICM.html. 187.107.38.230 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is a good stepping stone to get a Fields Medal (which we do have a category for, Category:Fields Medalists), then this seems non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Per everything I said above. The comments by the nominator concerns me that we have a four times stricter criteria for inclusion of the more encyclopedic topics against those of minor importance from an encyclopedic POV. Solomon7968 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all performer by performance - this is not what makes them notable; they were notable beforehand anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the people in these categories are notable as mathematicians, not as speakers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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) 01:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:17th century in the English colonial empire to Category:17th century in the British Empire
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century disestablishments in the English colonial empire to Category:17th-century disestablishments in the British Empire
• Propose renaming Category:16th century in the English colonial empire to Category:16th century in the British Empire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name for the C17 cat was adopted per CFD 2012 May 28, along with the Establishments sub-cat. However, that Establishments sub-cat has just been renamed back to "British Empire", see CFD 2015 June 23, overlooking this parent. All the other sub-cats use "British Empire" except for disestablishments. Note that back in 2012 there was a lead article at English colonial empire, but at the end of 2012 it was moved to English overseas possessions. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For consistency's sake (C2C) it might be alright to move it into British, but - also in accordance with English overseas possessions - it would actually make more sense to revert all these 17th-century categories from British into English, since Great Britain as a country did not emerge any earlier than in 1707. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Technically and constitutionally they were English colonies until 1707, despite England and Scotland sharing a monarch and thus conducting foreign policy as a single entity. The Darrien Scheme (I think) was the only specifically Scottish colony. Despite its technical inaccuracy, I think that the proposed forms are in fact the most satisfactory, particularly as this means that we will not need an English category for 1700-07. Furhtermore, the Darrien Scheme can be classified as British, meaning that we will not need a one-member category for Scottish colonies. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "British Empire". Note that the scheme that sank Scotland was the Darien scheme. Hugo999 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JarrahTree 01:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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) 01:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Australian Dictionary of Biography to Category:WikiProject Australia to-do lists

Nominator's rationale: This category consists mainly of Wikipedia administration pages (in the Wikipedia namespace), but its name looks like a normal category that should only contain encyclopedic pages (i.e. articles). As well as the rename the tag for Category:Australian biographical dictionaries should be removed and the single (eponymous) article in the category should be removed from it. DexDor ^(talk) 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the proposal might be in good faith and reasonable due process, the category was created specifically for a large source item that is regularly used as a source for australian biographies (living and dead) - and at the time the big BIO scare was happening, I think. It was created with nothing in mind to do anything with to do lists at all, not sure how they got in there or why. JarrahTree 22:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if this category isn't intended for WikiProject to-to lists (which could be moved to a different category) then what articles (this category is below Category:Articles) is it for? if just the eponymous article then WP:SMALLCAT applies. DexDor ^(talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous aust bio articles that rely on the source for their main content.. - they havent been linked, will try on weekend or soon...JarrahTree 09:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. DexDor ^(talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT without prejudice to recreating when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just lookin gat the to-do list for A theres 400 odd people listed of which 70% already have articles so its not a WP:SMALLCAT issue but rather one that just need to be populated, which Jarrag tree has already indicate that he'll do, a look at Jarrah Tree's contribs we can WP:AGF it'll get done. Gnangarra 05:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't answered the main point here - that either (1) the category is for encyclopedic content (articles) in which case all the Wikipedia namespace pages should be removed from it (thus making it vulnerable to WP:SMALLCAT) or (2) the category is for wikipedia administration in which case it should be renamed. DexDor ^(talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created as encyclopaedic for those Bio who have a corresponding entry in the ADB, the todo list were added as every topic does meet the requirements of GNG... the Todo list should be else where but the category itself isnt a small cat its just unpopulated because the articles themselves were removed when the sub category todo lists where added as they then in the sub cat lists. end result is this absurb process of removing the artcile from the parent cat because they are in subcats, then removing the suncats and deleting the parent cat because there arent any articles in it... Gnangarra 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense - e.g. you refer (3 times) to subcategories, but this category has no subcategories. This category contains only one article (the eponymous one) so presumably "removing the artcile from the parent cat" is referring to removing the eponymous article from the wikiproject category, but that article shouldn't be in a wikiproject category; its talk page should be (and is) in wikiproject categories. DexDor ^(talk) 06:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom this is a Wikipedia internal category; no user is going to follow the cat link on the bottom of the 1 article expecting to find a bunch of to-do's. Very bad form for user friendliness.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REname somehow. This is a project page, not a substantive article, or rather category. Possibly something like Category:WikiProject Australia Australian Dictionary of Biography might be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is a perfectly valid category, but it's for internal project maintenance rather than end-user browsing of articles, so its name needs to reflect its purpose. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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