Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ – Closed as Relist. Arguments in favor of overturning or relisting outweighed arguments for endorsing the close. Concerns about inadequate notification, bundling, low participation, and weak arguments in the original CfD suggest that a true consensus was not reached. Although some mentioned that the entire CfD discussion should be overturned, the scope of this review is limited to Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎, Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion . – - Mr X 17:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Post-close note: The four identified categories were restored and relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. St Anselm (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Which of the 5 DRV purposes do you think applies here? Re "There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion": In the 2 months that the deletion discussion was open no-one made an argument that the Netherlands categories should be discussed separately. P.S. For an example of how WP:NON-DEFINING these specific awards are see this[1] (Akihito is listed at Recipients of the Order of the Netherlands Lion). DexDor^(talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] As I mentioned above, the discussion may have been open for two months, but I didn't know it was going on. The first indication I had was when I saw the category had been removed from Ellen van Wolde (for whom the category evidently was defining). St Anselm (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] This gets back to the content of all previous CfDs about awards. The argument is that it is not defining for her. It is her occupation that is defining - while the award is merely a sign of appreciation for the work that she did in exercising her occupation. This is the typical argument that has been used throughout all these discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, but this is simply rubbish. I can't speak for Dutch awards, but for British honours the honour itself is most definitely defining. We often refer to someone as "a CBE", for example (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch is a CBE). The postnominal is forever after attached to their name and, in the case of knights and dames, they now have a title (Sir or Dame) which they usually use for the rest of their lives (e.g. Sir Michael Caine is now "Sir Michael" and no longer "Mr Caine"). How on earth is that not defining? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] This may be a very British thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I closed the discussion and just wanted to make a brief comment. I didn't elaborate on the reasons for closing it as I did, but note that this nomination was one of a series of several CFD discussions regarding these types of awards bestowed by countries. In all of the recent discussions, there has been a consensus to delete. By pure vote count, this one looks close, but taking all of the related discussions into account (which I did), and especially in light of the categorization guidelines, I don't think it's that close. (I endorse my own close, for what that is worth.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment (as the nominator): the recent discussions that User:Good Olfactory is referring to are the ones that pop up in this [[2]] list. There are quite a few of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Alas, none of us can watch everything. I would have !voted keep on every one of the deletions. Categories are navigational deices and meant to be useful. Looking for other people who have received a notable award is useful. That they include major heads of state of other countries does not detract from it. For articles, we can overcome even a justified clear consensus deletion by writing a better article. There's no such mechanism for categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. From my reading, the nomination statement and the bulk of the delete comments on the CfD were about political honors, and inapplicable to categories such as this one devoted to artistic/scientific honors. So as an off-topic afterthought to a long list of other categories, it has not really had a proper discussion. No prejudice against relisting individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Relist for more discussion on this category. The reasons for deletion were too perfunctory given that there was opposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I think the CFD showed a divided opinion rather than a consensus for deletion. The keep arguments seem substantial to me. A good question was raised against the suggestion that people should be categorised only by their most defining characteristic. Moreover, the nomination had misconstrued WP:OCAWARD and the previous discussions seem to have done the same. The overcategorization guideline is towards listifying, and not simply deleting, when an award is non-defining. The discussion ought to have considered whether the award is defining for any (group) of its recipients. Instead it was being argued that it is not defining for some (or, indeed, many) of its recipients. Generally, each category needs to be considered separately. Finally, one of the delete rationales was completely irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Generally, each category neeeds to be considered separately." Do you really think this nomination should be split into 30 nominations? CFDs are often grouped and, if someone says "Hey, that one doesn't fit" it's removed from the nomination (example). RevelationDirect (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I have not been considering the university nomination at all. I spent a long time considering the current nomination and I thought that, although there might be a few small groups that could be considered together, generally each category has different implications. However, my main argument, as you will have seen, is that the close of the CFD was not done within reasonable discretion. Thincat (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I misread your comment as advocating a general avoidance of group nominations. Thanks for clarifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Procedural question since this is turning into a discussion about the whole series of nominations, rather than about a single nomination, shouldn't we also invite the participants of all these CfD discussions to this Drv discussion? Or would that be considered as canvassing? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Maybe a tag on the current day's CFD would be neutral. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. All the other similar results should be overturned as well. They should never have been determined in this way. There was little discussion, no appropriate projects were notified (you know, to inform people who might have been interested in mass deletion of such categories and actually knowledgeable about the subject - because anyone who thinks honours aren't important enough to categorise clearly isn't!) and there was no real consensus in any case. How on earth is an honour not defining? I would also have voted keep on every one had I been aware the discussions were going on. This is really not an acceptable outcome and I notice another batch is now up for deletion including such "minor" awards as the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire! We need to reverse this ludicrous POV mass deletion project now before Wikipedia is further damaged by it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Necrothesp:WikiProjects: "No appropriate projects were notified" WikiProject Japan 1, WikiProject Spain 2 and WikiProject Norway 3 all were notified of this nomination. If you need help setting up automatic Alerts for another WikProject, just tag my talk page and I'm happy to set that up for you! RevelationDirect (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I was actually thinking more of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals‎ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. That would alert a far wider selection of editors interested in such things and not just those who watch specific countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Necrothesp's entry above. Thin to limited consensus and discussion do not warrant such a wholesale removal of categories. A couple of editors does not really constitute a precedent setting deletion discussion. EricSerge (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] ~~Late Contribution:Delete~~ I generally don't bother to participate in these CFD discussions because there is such a clear consensus that these and other similar categories are not defining in multiple nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Based on the feedback here and in CFD, I'm willing to take a closer look at some of the Dutch and Norwegian categories. In any case, this comment doesn't serve the purpose of this forum. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Procedural Question The main issue here seems to be that, even though the categories were tagged, some editors missed out on defending some specific members of the nomination. Can we re-list those for discussion in a CFD recreation nomination? (That seems like a more appropriate forum than here, which is really about questioning the judgment of the closing administrator.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I think it's implied in my comments, but endorse the close. There has been a clear consensus with the regular CFD contributors although some editors here look at WP:OCAWARD differently. Rehashing the merits of how that policy is applied with different editors here has the same impact as WP:FORUMSHOP (although that was not the intent of the nominator).RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I suppose my endorse vote wouldn't really count as having been the nominator. But I would like to stress that the overall support in these discussions together has not been thin. Many category discussions close with few(er) discussants! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but usually for less important categories and less controversial deletions. Many of the delete arguments on later nominations seem to be based on the principle that many had already been deleted so this creates some sort of precedent to delete all the others. That is ridiculous. A handful of editors shouldn't be able to create a precedent on such an important issue. I also note that there seems to have been a move from nominating categories for pretty obscure awards and awards mainly given by heads of state to other high dignitaries, which were deleted either because nobody knew they were being nominated or because of "category clutter" on the articles for such people, up to better-known awards, in which some contributors obviously thought a precedent had already been established to delete awards categories. Maybe not deliberately underhand (I'll assume good faith here), but it does unfortunately rather seem that way. In addition, there are certainly categories in the lists that should have been deleted (such as those for wound badges and minor military medals, which are indeed not at all defining). In these circumstances mass nomination of different types of award is a very bad idea. Each needs separate discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Honestly I've never considered this as an important issue, more like a housekeeping thing, since WP:OCAWARD is clear enough about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] OCAWARD tells us only the same thing the general category criteria do: Keep it if it's defining, or use a list otherwise. It provides no guidance as to whether these particular awards are defining or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as no strong arguments were made for keeping the categories. Tim! (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Where were the strong arguments to delete them? Without clear consensus we always err on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment (as OP): The Order of St. Olav award (which were also part of this deletion discussion) have also come up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2 - "The Order of St. Olav is the single most important Norwegian order for scientific, cultural and other achievements by Norwegian citizens" (Bjerrebæk). If I had realised the significance of the Order of St. Olav deletion, I would have included that in this DRV nomination as well. St Anselm (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Relist. Opinions were roughly divided, but the closer explained their decision above to make it understandable, and it seems to conform to the relevant guideline, WP:OCAWARD, although I find that guideline a bit unclear. Because this discussion, much like the one being reviewed, does not result in a clear consensus - and I myself am undecided both on the merits and more importantly procedurally, or I would have closed this - I think the best thing to do would be to relist the original discussion to give it more attention. Sandstein 07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Since much of the conversation has been about the underlying categories rather than how the nomination was closed, that's probably the best forum to move forward. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Relist. I don't have any experience with CfD, but my take here is that there's been more discussion on the topic here in DRV than there was in the original CfD, and that's typically a bad sign, since the discussion here is a mix of rehashing the original XfD and process review. The original CfD discussion looked pretty close. I think the best thing to do would be to throw it back on the CfD queue and let people discuss it fresh. I offer no opinion on whether the original close was correct or not; I'm just looking for the best solution going forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The nomination process already makes it too difficult to get rid of award categories, although they are very heavily discouraged by our guidelines. The nomination process here was fully within guidelines and no reason to overturn that process is given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] No, they're not "very heavily discouraged by our guidelines" at all. You seem to be confusing national honours with minor awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn or Relist. Given that the original rationale for the deletion is in doubt, and that's leaving aside any questions about the way due process was implemented. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Relist, separately if desired, as there did not seem to be a full consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn all previous deletions of award categories due to the new consensus that just turned down the proposal to delete comparable British award categories. The categories for other countries' main national awards have systematically been deleted for months, while British award categories, whether important, obscure or outright silly, are systematically kept. The same standards must apply to all countries' awards; either we allow award categories, or we remove comparable award categories regardless of whether they are British or Norwegian. Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] So is your comment a confirmation that you started the nomination in question to make a WP:POINT, as some alleged in that discussion? As the closer, I would say that the discussion hardly resulted in a new overarching "consensus", since many users simply wanted the discussion closed on the basis that they thought you were gaming the system or using it to make a point. (Regardless, I disagree with your implication that we're dealing with an "all or none" situation here. It's possible that there might be a consensus to delete some award categories but to keep others (or no consensus on others, which leads to the category remaining).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] WP:POINT Oh, good grief. I voted against your nomination, not on the merits, but based on the perception that it was a nomination designed to fail and then come back here to make WP:POINT. And here we are! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] So, which British honours are "outright silly" please? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire for one (imagine if Norwegian editors had created separate categories such as Category:British Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav, Category:Irish Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav etc.). Wikipedia has a serious problem with British bias in all things related to awards and honours. This is demonstrated by the fact that a massive hierarchy of very obscure British award categories such as Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire, even extending into other countries, are kept, while other countries have had the main categories of their main national awards deleted. The personal attacks by two other users above are quite telling. In the last year, the general policy interpretation has been that more or less all award categories should be deleted, but the fact that Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire and the like were kept has fundamentally changed this interpretation and set a new standard, according to which all award categories should be allowed. Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: My own position is that an award category can be deleted if it is used exclusively to honour royalty and foreign dignitaries (e.g. Category:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients), and never on the basis of merit. But some have been deleted on the basis that they are sometimes given to foreign dignitaries (and therefore still wind up in Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members). This seems the reason the Order of the Netherlands Lion cats were deleted - Akihito, for example, is a Knight Grand Cross. St Anselm (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] On the other end of the spectrum, I think widespread awards can be non-defining: 2 million Purple Hearts have been issued. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Absolutely, but then the Purple Heart is not awarded for merit or gallantry. It's basically just awarded for being unlucky. It's no more than a service medal. Many countries don't even bother to award medals or even badges for being wounded - it's not something you've done, just something that's happened to you. We most certainly shouldn't categorise people for being awarded wound badges or service medals, only for honours and medals they are awarded for some sort of distinguished action or service. We've tried to have Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal deleted before, but unfortunately many Americans seem to treat it as more than it is - an almost sacred award. It is frankly laughable that this pointless category (which could be retitled Category:Americans who have been killed or wounded in action) has survived CfD but genuine decorations for merit have been deleted and shows clear systemic bias in favour of the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think that you've made some good points throughout this discussion, Necrothesp. I haven't agreed with all of them, but it's good to see that some users can make reasonable, strong arguments to support what they are saying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Question Based on this discussion, would it be possible to rewrite the guideline a bit, in order to make it more concrete than it is currently? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I was thinking the same thing; Necrothesp creates a working criteria of awards being uncommon and not strictly a formality. We would just need to make sure we consider other problem awards, like those at the bottom of the The Titanic Soundtrack article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse this isn't CFD 2.0; the arguments were made and there was no misinterpretation in the close. Discussions of what other awards are or aren't similar are not relevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is instructive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] There was no true consensus to delete, there was mass nomination of categories relating to very different awards with little attempt to notify those who might have expertise in the subject (it might have been guessed that this would be controversial), and some opinions in later CfDs seem to have been based on the fact that categories were deleted in previous CfDs which was taken mistakenly to create a precedent to delete all categories relating to honours (I could cite WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST here!). Sorry, but all these decisions were deeply flawed and should all be reversed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC There was no consensus in that discussion. And very little in the way of meaningful discussion wrt the actual categories. I know that cat discussions are often fairly limited, but with something this wide ranging, consensus should be very clear and it wasn't. Relist as desired but notify the awards wiki project. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ – Closed as Relist. Arguments in favor of overturning or relisting outweighed arguments for endorsing the close. Concerns about inadequate notification, bundling, low participation, and weak arguments in the original CfD suggest that a true consensus was not reached. Although some mentioned that the entire CfD discussion should be overturned, the scope of this review is limited to Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎, Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion . – - Mr X 17:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-close note: The four identified categories were restored and relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. St Anselm (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Which of the 5 DRV purposes do you think applies here? Re "There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion": In the 2 months that the deletion discussion was open no-one made an argument that the Netherlands categories should be discussed separately. P.S. For an example of how WP:NON-DEFINING these specific awards are see this[1] (Akihito is listed at Recipients of the Order of the Netherlands Lion). DexDor^(talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the discussion may have been open for two months, but I didn't know it was going on. The first indication I had was when I saw the category had been removed from Ellen van Wolde (for whom the category evidently was defining). St Anselm (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This gets back to the content of all previous CfDs about awards. The argument is that it is not defining for her. It is her occupation that is defining - while the award is merely a sign of appreciation for the work that she did in exercising her occupation. This is the typical argument that has been used throughout all these discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is simply rubbish. I can't speak for Dutch awards, but for British honours the honour itself is most definitely defining. We often refer to someone as "a CBE", for example (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch is a CBE). The postnominal is forever after attached to their name and, in the case of knights and dames, they now have a title (Sir or Dame) which they usually use for the rest of their lives (e.g. Sir Michael Caine is now "Sir Michael" and no longer "Mr Caine"). How on earth is that not defining? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a very British thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I closed the discussion and just wanted to make a brief comment. I didn't elaborate on the reasons for closing it as I did, but note that this nomination was one of a series of several CFD discussions regarding these types of awards bestowed by countries. In all of the recent discussions, there has been a consensus to delete. By pure vote count, this one looks close, but taking all of the related discussions into account (which I did), and especially in light of the categorization guidelines, I don't think it's that close. (I endorse my own close, for what that is worth.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as the nominator): the recent discussions that User:Good Olfactory is referring to are the ones that pop up in this [[2]] list. There are quite a few of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alas, none of us can watch everything. I would have !voted keep on every one of the deletions. Categories are navigational deices and meant to be useful. Looking for other people who have received a notable award is useful. That they include major heads of state of other countries does not detract from it. For articles, we can overcome even a justified clear consensus deletion by writing a better article. There's no such mechanism for categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. From my reading, the nomination statement and the bulk of the delete comments on the CfD were about political honors, and inapplicable to categories such as this one devoted to artistic/scientific honors. So as an off-topic afterthought to a long list of other categories, it has not really had a proper discussion. No prejudice against relisting individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for more discussion on this category. The reasons for deletion were too perfunctory given that there was opposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think the CFD showed a divided opinion rather than a consensus for deletion. The keep arguments seem substantial to me. A good question was raised against the suggestion that people should be categorised only by their most defining characteristic. Moreover, the nomination had misconstrued WP:OCAWARD and the previous discussions seem to have done the same. The overcategorization guideline is towards listifying, and not simply deleting, when an award is non-defining. The discussion ought to have considered whether the award is defining for any (group) of its recipients. Instead it was being argued that it is not defining for some (or, indeed, many) of its recipients. Generally, each category needs to be considered separately. Finally, one of the delete rationales was completely irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally, each category neeeds to be considered separately." Do you really think this nomination should be split into 30 nominations? CFDs are often grouped and, if someone says "Hey, that one doesn't fit" it's removed from the nomination (example). RevelationDirect (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been considering the university nomination at all. I spent a long time considering the current nomination and I thought that, although there might be a few small groups that could be considered together, generally each category has different implications. However, my main argument, as you will have seen, is that the close of the CFD was not done within reasonable discretion. Thincat (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misread your comment as advocating a general avoidance of group nominations. Thanks for clarifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question since this is turning into a discussion about the whole series of nominations, rather than about a single nomination, shouldn't we also invite the participants of all these CfD discussions to this Drv discussion? Or would that be considered as canvassing? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a tag on the current day's CFD would be neutral. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. All the other similar results should be overturned as well. They should never have been determined in this way. There was little discussion, no appropriate projects were notified (you know, to inform people who might have been interested in mass deletion of such categories and actually knowledgeable about the subject - because anyone who thinks honours aren't important enough to categorise clearly isn't!) and there was no real consensus in any case. How on earth is an honour not defining? I would also have voted keep on every one had I been aware the discussions were going on. This is really not an acceptable outcome and I notice another batch is now up for deletion including such "minor" awards as the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire! We need to reverse this ludicrous POV mass deletion project now before Wikipedia is further damaged by it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp:WikiProjects: "No appropriate projects were notified" WikiProject Japan 1, WikiProject Spain 2 and WikiProject Norway 3 all were notified of this nomination. If you need help setting up automatic Alerts for another WikProject, just tag my talk page and I'm happy to set that up for you! RevelationDirect (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually thinking more of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals‎ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. That would alert a far wider selection of editors interested in such things and not just those who watch specific countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Necrothesp's entry above. Thin to limited consensus and discussion do not warrant such a wholesale removal of categories. A couple of editors does not really constitute a precedent setting deletion discussion. EricSerge (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Late Contribution:Delete~~ I generally don't bother to participate in these CFD discussions because there is such a clear consensus that these and other similar categories are not defining in multiple nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the feedback here and in CFD, I'm willing to take a closer look at some of the Dutch and Norwegian categories. In any case, this comment doesn't serve the purpose of this forum. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Question The main issue here seems to be that, even though the categories were tagged, some editors missed out on defending some specific members of the nomination. Can we re-list those for discussion in a CFD recreation nomination? (That seems like a more appropriate forum than here, which is really about questioning the judgment of the closing administrator.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I think it's implied in my comments, but endorse the close. There has been a clear consensus with the regular CFD contributors although some editors here look at WP:OCAWARD differently. Rehashing the merits of how that policy is applied with different editors here has the same impact as WP:FORUMSHOP (although that was not the intent of the nominator).RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my endorse vote wouldn't really count as having been the nominator. But I would like to stress that the overall support in these discussions together has not been thin. Many category discussions close with few(er) discussants! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but usually for less important categories and less controversial deletions. Many of the delete arguments on later nominations seem to be based on the principle that many had already been deleted so this creates some sort of precedent to delete all the others. That is ridiculous. A handful of editors shouldn't be able to create a precedent on such an important issue. I also note that there seems to have been a move from nominating categories for pretty obscure awards and awards mainly given by heads of state to other high dignitaries, which were deleted either because nobody knew they were being nominated or because of "category clutter" on the articles for such people, up to better-known awards, in which some contributors obviously thought a precedent had already been established to delete awards categories. Maybe not deliberately underhand (I'll assume good faith here), but it does unfortunately rather seem that way. In addition, there are certainly categories in the lists that should have been deleted (such as those for wound badges and minor military medals, which are indeed not at all defining). In these circumstances mass nomination of different types of award is a very bad idea. Each needs separate discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly I've never considered this as an important issue, more like a housekeeping thing, since WP:OCAWARD is clear enough about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OCAWARD tells us only the same thing the general category criteria do: Keep it if it's defining, or use a list otherwise. It provides no guidance as to whether these particular awards are defining or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no strong arguments were made for keeping the categories. Tim! (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where were the strong arguments to delete them? Without clear consensus we always err on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as OP): The Order of St. Olav award (which were also part of this deletion discussion) have also come up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2 - "The Order of St. Olav is the single most important Norwegian order for scientific, cultural and other achievements by Norwegian citizens" (Bjerrebæk). If I had realised the significance of the Order of St. Olav deletion, I would have included that in this DRV nomination as well. St Anselm (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Opinions were roughly divided, but the closer explained their decision above to make it understandable, and it seems to conform to the relevant guideline, WP:OCAWARD, although I find that guideline a bit unclear. Because this discussion, much like the one being reviewed, does not result in a clear consensus - and I myself am undecided both on the merits and more importantly procedurally, or I would have closed this - I think the best thing to do would be to relist the original discussion to give it more attention. Sandstein 07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since much of the conversation has been about the underlying categories rather than how the nomination was closed, that's probably the best forum to move forward. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I don't have any experience with CfD, but my take here is that there's been more discussion on the topic here in DRV than there was in the original CfD, and that's typically a bad sign, since the discussion here is a mix of rehashing the original XfD and process review. The original CfD discussion looked pretty close. I think the best thing to do would be to throw it back on the CfD queue and let people discuss it fresh. I offer no opinion on whether the original close was correct or not; I'm just looking for the best solution going forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The nomination process already makes it too difficult to get rid of award categories, although they are very heavily discouraged by our guidelines. The nomination process here was fully within guidelines and no reason to overturn that process is given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they're not "very heavily discouraged by our guidelines" at all. You seem to be confusing national honours with minor awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or Relist. Given that the original rationale for the deletion is in doubt, and that's leaving aside any questions about the way due process was implemented. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, separately if desired, as there did not seem to be a full consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all previous deletions of award categories due to the new consensus that just turned down the proposal to delete comparable British award categories. The categories for other countries' main national awards have systematically been deleted for months, while British award categories, whether important, obscure or outright silly, are systematically kept. The same standards must apply to all countries' awards; either we allow award categories, or we remove comparable award categories regardless of whether they are British or Norwegian. Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So is your comment a confirmation that you started the nomination in question to make a WP:POINT, as some alleged in that discussion? As the closer, I would say that the discussion hardly resulted in a new overarching "consensus", since many users simply wanted the discussion closed on the basis that they thought you were gaming the system or using it to make a point. (Regardless, I disagree with your implication that we're dealing with an "all or none" situation here. It's possible that there might be a consensus to delete some award categories but to keep others (or no consensus on others, which leads to the category remaining).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:POINT Oh, good grief. I voted against your nomination, not on the merits, but based on the perception that it was a nomination designed to fail and then come back here to make WP:POINT. And here we are! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So, which British honours are "outright silly" please? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire for one (imagine if Norwegian editors had created separate categories such as Category:British Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav, Category:Irish Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav etc.). Wikipedia has a serious problem with British bias in all things related to awards and honours. This is demonstrated by the fact that a massive hierarchy of very obscure British award categories such as Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire, even extending into other countries, are kept, while other countries have had the main categories of their main national awards deleted. The personal attacks by two other users above are quite telling. In the last year, the general policy interpretation has been that more or less all award categories should be deleted, but the fact that Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire and the like were kept has fundamentally changed this interpretation and set a new standard, according to which all award categories should be allowed. Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My own position is that an award category can be deleted if it is used exclusively to honour royalty and foreign dignitaries (e.g. Category:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients), and never on the basis of merit. But some have been deleted on the basis that they are sometimes given to foreign dignitaries (and therefore still wind up in Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members). This seems the reason the Order of the Netherlands Lion cats were deleted - Akihito, for example, is a Knight Grand Cross. St Anselm (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other end of the spectrum, I think widespread awards can be non-defining: 2 million Purple Hearts have been issued. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, but then the Purple Heart is not awarded for merit or gallantry. It's basically just awarded for being unlucky. It's no more than a service medal. Many countries don't even bother to award medals or even badges for being wounded - it's not something you've done, just something that's happened to you. We most certainly shouldn't categorise people for being awarded wound badges or service medals, only for honours and medals they are awarded for some sort of distinguished action or service. We've tried to have Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal deleted before, but unfortunately many Americans seem to treat it as more than it is - an almost sacred award. It is frankly laughable that this pointless category (which could be retitled Category:Americans who have been killed or wounded in action) has survived CfD but genuine decorations for merit have been deleted and shows clear systemic bias in favour of the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you've made some good points throughout this discussion, Necrothesp. I haven't agreed with all of them, but it's good to see that some users can make reasonable, strong arguments to support what they are saying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Based on this discussion, would it be possible to rewrite the guideline a bit, in order to make it more concrete than it is currently? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking the same thing; Necrothesp creates a working criteria of awards being uncommon and not strictly a formality. We would just need to make sure we consider other problem awards, like those at the bottom of the The Titanic Soundtrack article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this isn't CFD 2.0; the arguments were made and there was no misinterpretation in the close. Discussions of what other awards are or aren't similar are not relevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is instructive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no true consensus to delete, there was mass nomination of categories relating to very different awards with little attempt to notify those who might have expertise in the subject (it might have been guessed that this would be controversial), and some opinions in later CfDs seem to have been based on the fact that categories were deleted in previous CfDs which was taken mistakenly to create a precedent to delete all categories relating to honours (I could cite WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST here!). Sorry, but all these decisions were deeply flawed and should all be reversed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC There was no consensus in that discussion. And very little in the way of meaningful discussion wrt the actual categories. I know that cat discussions are often fairly limited, but with something this wide ranging, consensus should be very clear and it wasn't. Relist as desired but notify the awards wiki project. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.