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: remove DMOZ and then merge, but I will exclude Category:Albanian-language websites as more content has since been added there and it usefully diffuses these from the "mass media" parent. These merges are WP:SOFTDELETEs, i.e. any of them may be re-created if enough content is found to make them useful for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 09:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is to merge 26 language website categories with only one or two members into mass media categories in line with WP:SMALLCAT. In most cases the members are the multilingual website DMOZ and a local wikipedia. Also to merge 3 encyclopedia categories containing only a local wikipedia into mass media categories, similarly in line with WP:SMALLCAT. TSventon (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Volapük encyclopedias to Category:Volapük mass media
PurgeDMOZ from all of them, and optionally merge what's left if relevant. DMOZ is already categorised under Category:Multilingual websites. In no way can all of these individual languages be considered defining characteristics for a single directory. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purge per Paul_012, then merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of these categories seem to be underpopulated. Many website articles are currently only categorised by country and not by language. But do we want to do both, as they will be largely redundant? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Paul 012: my thinking on that question was that the categories I nominated are not useful with their current contents so in my view should be merged. I am not sure how to resolve the duplication issue: websites raise further questions as not all articles specify the language of the website and I am not sure whether websites in a small number of languages as multilingual or (for example) Turkmen, Russian and English. Out of interest I checked Category:Danish-language newspapers, which contained 39 articles (plus a subcategory for Danish-language newspapers published in the United States) with Category:Newspapers published in Denmark, which contained the same 39 articles. In contrast Category:Icelandic-language newspapers is incomplete compared to Category:Newspapers published in Iceland. TSventon (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to hold this nomination at all. The proposed mergers are keeping the content in a language category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, My thinking is that if I added Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina websites to Category:Bosnian-language websites, then I would withdraw the merger of Category:Bosnian-language websites to Category:Bosnian-language mass media and I would also check the other nominations as many countries have a websites category containing some websites in the national language. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only thing that would be left in Category:Bosnian-language websites in that new structure is a country subcategory and (highly unlikely) Bosnian-language websites in other countries than Bosnia and Herzegovina. So WP:SMALLCAT still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case the regional spread of a language almost coincides with a country, we will hardly need a language tree for media at all, probably except at the very highest level. Denmark is a good examples of that. Which reminds me of something completely different (almost off-topic): Bosnian is just a variant (dialect) of the Serbo-Croatian language, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree that "we will hardly need a language tree for media at all" in cases like Danish, but wouldn't that need its own discussion? The general rule is that A language is a dialect with an army and navy. Obviously the situation in Bosnia is more complicated than that.
I'm really not sure about this. Going by the newspaper analogy and Thailand, for example, there are several English-language newspapers published in Thailand, but no notable Thai-language newspapers that are published elsewhere. But it's of course pretty much the opposite for international languages that don't correspond 1:1 to a country. The only truly logical way to deal with this would be to categorise both by language and country, separately. This is what is done with film articles. But we seem not to want to go this path, given the redundancy it will necessarily generate. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a few of these categories have been emptied out of process. LizRead!Talk! 20:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLiz that was the removal of 88 language website categories from DMOZ on 9 May, thus leaving some of them empty. TSventon (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (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:Roman gladiators
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. bibliomaniac15 01:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would normally fall under WP:C2D, but since Category:Gladiators is currently a disambiguation category, I'm putting it here. Other meanings are in my opinion secondary and the primary topic is evident. Brandmeistertalk 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the existance of Category:Gladiators (franchise). For categories the distinction between primary and secondary topic is less relevant, what matters that it is too risky that articles are going to be miscategorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think the Gladiators franchise is equally or more popular, but as said that is not the point at stake. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Marcocapelle. There was quite a long time, perhaps now past, when in the UK the primary meaning of Gladiators (plural) was a TV show. Oculi (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While Roman gladiators may be the primary ones for article purposes, there are a lot of other uses of the word, and as a category title, I think this is just fine—speaking as a classicist, I naturally prefer the meaning in a historical context, but I don't think this category title is problematic. A lot of existing Roman categories are titled this way. P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Target is a dab-cat because it needs to be, to prevent it picking up articles about other uses of the word. This is necessary with categories, classically not Category:Birmingham, but West Midlands or Alabama. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2020 (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:Fictional character redirects to lists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: While this category is named "Fictional character redirects to lists" the actual template is named ((R from fictional character)) since 2014 after this and this discussions, and the template text itself mentions that it can be for non-list entries as well. This means that not all redirects tagged with this template are "to lists".
This naming would match the one used for fictional location redirects: Category:Fictional location redirects and Category:All fictional location redirects which was recently renamed. If this passes, then followup speedy nominations can be done for the sub-categories. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean all the redirects that actually go to lists (a lot) should be tagged with the rcat for redirects to lists after renaming. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They already should as the ((R from fictional character)) template is not a catch-all redirect template, it's meant only for character redirects. As an aside, the only R to lists redirect template is ((R to list entry)) which is not a general "to lists" redirect category either and is different form ((R to anchor)) and ((R to section)). --Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember myself untagging R to list entry due to “overcategorisation”. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'd like to point out that Category:All fictional location redirects is currently a subcategory of Category:Fictional location redirects, and I believe the categories in this CfD will have the opposite relationship when they are renamed. I don't know if "All" should be the parent or subcategory, but the relationship should be made consistent for both locations and characters. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 16:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:47, 1 May 2020 (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:Former coal gas-fired power stations in the United States
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:double upmerge & deleteTimrollpickering (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Former coal gas-fired power stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: not enough entries Chidgk1 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parent Category Tagged: Category:Coal gas-fired power stations by country is also tagged as part of this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Proposal:
Delete Category:Coal gas-fired power stations by country (Contains only the US subcat below)
Completely agree with the nom's WP:SMALLCAT rationale but lets move thee handful of articles up to more populated parent categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like to see a little more discussion regarding the alternative proposal, considering how different it is from the nom proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:45, 1 May 2020 (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:Upcoming video games not yet scheduled
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, we already using the Upcoming video games category for the same purpose. TheDeviantPro (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) This is a sibling category to (currently) Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2020 and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2021, except that, of course, these games do not have release dates attached. Proper populating will allow Category:Upcoming video games to be a diffused category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category has no different purpose to Category:Upcoming video games, which also includes games with no scheduled release dates. Category:Upcoming video games not yet scheduled is not a subcategory of Category:Upcoming video games, it's the same category with different wording with no difference in purpose; making this a unnecessary diffusing. The fact it's using the same tag from Upcoming video games category and had no improvements since creation with a handful of articles attached, makes this feel like a miscellaneous category. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not helpful to start a parallel discussion elsewhere. Please ask involved editors to comment here at CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closer please hold of on closing this discussion until the aforementioned Project talkpage discussion concludes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE ALL Why sort them by year they are suppose to come out? What happens when they don't get released on that year, but are delayed, as often happens? Category:Upcoming video games is the only one we need. DreamFocus 15:02, 10 May 2020 (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:Ethnic mass media
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. bibliomaniac15 17:44, 10 May 2020 (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:Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - Yes, I read the deletion logs for "People". That is why the old category "People" was changed to "Officials": because I agree that "People" was too broad. "Officials" nicely circumscribes the list. Magnovvig (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Officials" is broad too. Almost medical "officials" are associated with the pandemic now. All national leaders are one of the types of "officials", and they are also coronavirus related figures. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. All officials are not newsworthy, and most officials fail to pass the WP:BLP test. Magnovvig (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining e.g. for Li Keqiang and because "associated with" categories are bad categorization (e.g. inherently subjective) - people should be categorized as a virologist, epidemiologist or whatever. DexDor(talk) 17:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Might you change your vote to Keep if we started a new category of Category:Scientists associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? Scientists groups virologist and epidemiologist. Magnovvig (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be quite as bad, but it's still "associated with" and over time would probably drift into containing scientists killed by the virus, pschologists investigating mental health during lockdown, physicists making comments etc. If a person has done significant research into Covid-19 then that should be mentioned in the text of the relevant articles; categories are a bit different. DexDor(talk) 19:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we let Officials and Scientists co-exist for one month, then revisit this issue. If it transpires as you say, I'll be the first to support you. Magnovvig (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category definition is misleading, as is the name. For example, Neil Fergusson is not an official, he's a scientist. Perhaps two categories are needed - one for officials and the other for scientists. Arcturus (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcturus: I had questions as well as you surrounding Ferguson's inclusion on this list. Might you change your vote to Keep if we started a new category of Category:Scientists associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? Magnovvig (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost of the reasoning from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (presumably the parent category) applies here. It is simply too vague when you consider what "associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" might mean. Almost every official is going to be a candidate to be included. Presumably a football referee who tests positive would be eligible for inclusion as well. When you also consider the ambiguity around "Official" (is Neil Ferguson an official?), the category is shown to be too ill-defined to be useful. --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense re football referee. In what way would s/he be WP:BLP noteworthy? Besides, oddballs like that would be trimmed by the occasional wiki administrator.
@RexxS: I had questions as well as you surrounding Ferguson's inclusion on this list. Might you change your vote to Keep if we started a new category of Category:Scientists associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? Magnovvig (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Observe MOS:INDENTMIX please. The only nonsense is your mistaken suggestion that we don't have notable match officials. Take a look at Category:Association football referees and drill down for hundreds of notable football referees. Because "Official" is such an ill-defined concept, editors will feel quite entitled to add any of those who happen to have a passing connection with COVID-19, and it's not the job of 'occasional admins' to go around trimming them. The onus falls on the category creator to define categories unambiguously.
As [:Category:Scientists associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic] would seem to include anyone with a science degree who died from COVID-19, I seriously doubt that it would fare any better than this one. --RexxS (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--> Because "Official" is such an ill-defined concept, editors will feel quite entitled to add any of those who happen to have a passing connection with COVID-19 <--
I suppose I have more faith than you in the collective of wiki editors. WP:BLP plus 'notability for being an official who had an impact on the coronavirus pandemic' rather than just 'was a victim', would seem to be the operative screen for match officials who happen to have contracted COVID-19. Maybe we can put the screen in the "Category:Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" notice so that instead of reading
Governmental officials and non-governmental officials and academics associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
it might read
Governmental officials and non-governmental officials and academics associated with, but who were not simply victims of, the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
What do you think about that? My this discussion forum and cquote do not interact very well at all. Magnovvig (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying hard to accommodate INDENTMIX - sadly ((cquote)) doesn't play nicely in threaded discussion. I hope you don't mind that I've amended it to use ((quote)) which does behave.
I admit to having a jaundiced view of the foibles of wiki-editors. My considerable experience is that if there a way to screw something up, an editor will find it. A lot of keen category editors use HotCat and when I add a new category and type "officials", HotCat immediately offers me Category:Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Categories are not like list articles where the inclusion criteria are visible at the top of the article when someone tries to add a member, and if the intended membership is not crystal clear in the title of the category, editors will add members to the category that they think are appropriate. No amount of precision on the unseen category page will discourage that, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your care of my commentary. Still, I disagree with you. If the topic has a Category:Organizations associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, I don't see why it should have no "People", sorry Officials.
When you look at the numbers (39 pages of Officials listed in one week) one might think that the category fails to exhibit the exponential growth feared by some, and strikes the right balance. Magnovvig (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is a pandemic, so that almost every one in high office is working on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Nonsense. All officials are not newsworthy, and most officials fail to pass the WP:BLP test. Magnovvig (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorization based on some undefined "association" is speculative and doesn't help navigate among articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is that how you use the Category tool? I use it as an aide-memoire. Like as in: 'Hmm. Who was that bloke who is responsible for Swedish policy on covid?'. Given that we use the Category tool differently, would you reconsider your recommendation? Magnovvig (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To find (in wp) the answer to a question like that you should be looking in article text (where it can be explained and referenced) - not in a category which at best will give you the name mixed with dozens/hundreds of other names and at worst won't include the current person in that role (e.g. if we don't have an article about them). DexDor(talk) 18:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will ultimately be redundant with the list of world leaders in 2020. Place Clichy (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (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:Asturian-language websites
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. The Faroese category now has one member Kvinna, but that is appropriate for upmerging anyway. The others are empty. – FayenaticLondon 09:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The former website DMOZ served 91 different languages and is therefore classified into 88 language website categories, which I believe is overcategorisation. This is to merge 20 language website categories, where DMOZ is the only member, into mass media categories. Next steps: Bangala, Faroese, Kashubian, North Frisian, Saterland Frisian, Turkmen, West Frisian mass media should also be upmerged to their language categories. I could then remove the 88 language website categories from DMOZ, leaving Category:Multilingual websites. Around 20 language website categories which only contain DMOZ and a local wikipedia can also be nominated for upmerger. TSventon (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Bangala-language websites to Category:Bangala-language mass media
Propose merging Category:Turkmen-language websites to Category:Turkmen-language mass media
Propose merging Category:West Frisian-language websites to Category:West Frisian-language mass media
Support - DMOZ is perhaps the best example of category clutter ever. (DMOZ should not be in any foo-language category: DMOZ was not an 'Asturian language' website, it was a multilingual website.) Oculi (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to hold this nomination, because with this proposal the content remains part of the trees by language. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2020 (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:Foreign-language mass media in the United States by state
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.
agree with this change I appear to be the creator of many of these categories back in 2013 prior to the CfD of 2015. Hmains (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Support: This would be inline with this CfD which closed on April 27. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:26 on May 2, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
OK, maybe not all (though I think you could), but the Category:Foreign-language mass media in <STATE> to Category:Non-English-language mass media in <STATE> would be covered as that was essentially what the entire CfD was about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:14 on May 2, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
@Neutralhomer: However, that CfD was about the categories that had “media” instead of “mass media”. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, that CfD will cover the changes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:05 on May 2, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Comment/Question what is to be covered; non-English media available in each state or media organizations based/headquartered in each state? It seems to be both and that makes these a mess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2020 (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:Volapük mass media
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.
Support upmerge and the two subcategories should be nominated for upmerge as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I have nominated upmerge of the two subcategories in the Category:Afrikaans-language websites section above. @1234qwer1234qwer4: are you happy to support an upmerge rather than renaming? TSventon (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2020 (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 Pravasi Bharatiya Community Service Award
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 main article, Pravasi Bharatiya Community Service Award, was deleted here in AFD back in 2013 because of lack of sourcing and concern that it was a fraudulent award designed to sound similar to the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman award. This is one of the exceptions to WP:OCAWARD, where listification is not warranted. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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 Pravasi Bharatiya Samman from Bahrain
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 Pravasi Bharatiya Samman award is given by the Indian government for prominent expats living in other countries around the world. Both of these categories are by the same author and aim to break up the Indian expats by what country they moved to. We certainly could do that but we already have the Category:Indian diaspora by country tree serving that function. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom, and also because with only about 50 articles across the globe this recipients category is simply too small to diffuse by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2020 (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.