Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

Category:Wikipedians who develop Snuggle

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Snuggle is tagged as {{historical}}, and the last commit to its GitHub repository (and thus the last actual time it was "developed") was in 2016). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:48, 30 April 2021 (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 Presidential Unit Citation (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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining American award category. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2021 (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 Aerial Achievement Medal

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) 00:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining American award category. Checked several bios, doesnt show it to be defining. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2021 (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:Hindu scholars

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. (Does this now overlap with Category:Hindu studies scholars?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename (and remove page header) to avoid ambiguity. Hindu scholars might include (which the page header suggests) Hindu chemists and Hindu French linguists, but this is neither according to the current category content nor in line with
WP:OCEGRS as a trivial intersection with religion. The proposed name Category:Scholars of Hinduism avoids these misinterpretations and is in line with Category:Scholars of Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2021 (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:Hindu enclaves

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 and merge selected articles to Category:Hindu communities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, mostly overlapping with Category:Hinduism by country and otherwise non-defining (e.g. it is not defining for Pemulwuy, New South Wales with a 13% Indian minority). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Marcocapelle. Plus, I don't think "enclave" is the normal term for a minority religious community. Furius (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2021 (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:Hinduism in culture

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, container category with only three subcategories, it would be more intuitive to find these subcategories directly in the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2021 (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:Military aircraft of World War II

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) 00:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:World War II military equipment by type, Category:World War II ships, Category:World War II vehicles etc. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2021 (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:Wikipedians who use Vandal Fighter

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) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although there is no explicit statement of obsolescence on User:Henna/VF (unlike my other "defunct project/tool" CfD nominations), the tool does not seem to have been maintained since 2010, all of its download links are broken, and the creator's last 50 edits date back to 2006, so I'm assuming the tool is no longer in active use. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:54, 30 April 2021 (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:Wikipedians who use STiki

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) 00:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:STiki, STiki has not been functional since March 2020. The creator has been unable to access the servers that STiki depends on in order to run * Pppery * it has begun... 00:49, 30 April 2021 (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 Silver Star

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining American award category. Checked several bios, and the people who got it aren't famous for having the award but for other reasons. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yet another ridiculous honours category nomination. Third-level bravery awards are most certainly defining. These ludicrous attacks on honours categories have to stop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Complete misunderstanding of our categorisation guidelines. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Has nothing to do with being famous solely for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hawkeye7: I have a suspicion that this may be a "revenge attack" for the recent proposing of the deletion (and, indeed, actual deletion) of numerous non-Anglophone honours categories in which exactly the same reasoning has been used. It's always illegitimate, but sadly CfD is often so poorly attended that they've been forced through with little opposition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Third highest award for bravery is sufficient for a keep. It should be noted that it also has its own Wikipedia article. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - poorly crafted nom, lacking in understanding of the very reasons being cited, should be struck. Also per Hawkeye7 & Kierzek. (note:
    wolf 15:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. As Necrothesp says, PlanespotterA320 is trying to make a point rather than actually advancing a position that they hold, which is disruptive... But I agree that this award appears in articles in exactly the same circumstances as most of the (much higher-ranking) awards whose categories have been nominated for deletion over the last week. Those categories look very much like they are going to be deleted; this one is a snow keep. It's hard not to see a double standard in operation. Furius (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply think our category standards should be consistent. The category for the HIGHEST order/Second highest decoration of the USSR is being nominated for deletion and it's "up in the air" as to if that's going to happen - so why is it undebatable that the THIRD highest American medal have a category for recipients? As long as it is acceptable to debate merits of one category, it should be fine to debate the other.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then go to a talk page and start a discussion. You don't post tit-for-tat revenge noms just to prove a point. -
wolf 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Just because we have a recipient category for the Nobel Peace Prize, doesn't mean we automatically give recipient categories to the other 81 articles in
    WP:OCAWARD for one country and not for another. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Is any Norwegian actually spoken at a Nobel Peace Prize ceremony? We keep Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates because it is one of the pre-eminent awards in the world. We got rid of Category:World Peace Prize laureates because it is a very minor award. They are not at all on the same level and to act like one is the English language equivalent of the other is just not right...
To be clear though, I do think that you're operating in good faith; I just don't think that the result, which in practice sees English and American award cats stay and the cats for other nations go (mostly because people who work on military articles swoop in when the American ones are nominated, but don't notice the Romanian/Luxembourgish/Russian ones) is a good result. (You're also right about your move for a procedural close) Furius (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Of course those peace awards are different and we came to that conclusion through stand-alone nominations, not requiring that the Nobel be nominated before any others peace awards could be considered. There are definitely editor constituencies for some topics (Soviet history, American military) and less for others but the regular CFD contributors are generally even handed when looking at articles. The troubling disparity is not in the category space that can be handled through CFD but with how many biography articles are missing for people from non-English speaking countries. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: Awards like the Victoria Cross, Nobel Prize, BAFTA, etc. generally do say why it was won because it's a key piece to their biography. The fundamental difference with other verifiable biographical details is that hometowns, schools attended, dates of birth/death generally have 1 entry per biography so there's not a risk of category clutter which impedes navigation for readers which is the whole purpose of categories. (There are exceptions, when George H. W. Bush ran for president, he claimed to be a hometown candidate in a preposterous number of different states.)RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whilst I disagree with
    WP:POINTY nominations, I think that PlanespotterA320's point has in fact been proved. We are applying double standards to well-known honours from Anglophone countries against not so well-known (to Anglophones) honours from non-Anglophone countries. As I have been saying for a while, this whole issue needs to be addressed centrally and not in piecemeal nominations of categories in CfDs that hardly anyone notices, which is then taken as consensus to nominate further categories. My take on it is, of course, that all such honours are defining, whatever country awards them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
wait... wut? -
wolf 16:58, 6 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_30&oldid=1023923264"