Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19

Category:SGpedians' notice board members

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) 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore * Pppery * it has begun... 23:51, 19 February 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 participate in Mathematics Collaboration of the Month

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) 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Collaboration of the Month is marked as historical. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer do it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:11, 21 February 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:Wikipedia abuse response volunteers

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) 23:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Abuse response is no longer an active process. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer use it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 23 February 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 igloo

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) 23:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:Igloo, Igloo is no longer functional due to the API that it runs on no longer being supported. Users are advised to try these alternatives. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:14, 19 February 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.

VandalProof categories

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) 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof, Vandalproof is no longer in use. Please consider using Huggle instead * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't improve the encyclopedia by collaborating on this if we no longer use it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value in these categories. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 23 February 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:Wikipedian WikiElves

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) 01:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:WikiElf, WikiElf is a broad term for an editor who in various degrees works behind the scenes at Wikipedia.. These two categories seem to cover the same scope. I would also be okay with deleting the category without merging, or converting it back to a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 19 February 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:Wikipedian WikiPrincesses

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) 01:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the category description, A Wiki princess (or WikiPrincess), is someone who enjoys the riches of Wikipedia's knowledge without contributing to it, and uses the Wiki primarily for socializing. Neither a category listing users who do not contribute nor one listing users who (mis)use the wiki for socialization serve any collaborative function. Wikipedia:WikiPrincess also implies that WikiPrincesses can be involved in back-end discussions, however that's already covered by Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 19 February 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:Aviation accidents and incidents involving historic warbirds

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) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nom per
WP:GNG, the number is unlikely to grow significantly, and similar crashes can be adequately linked in the "See also" section of each respective article. Carguychris (talk) 18:56, 19 February 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:Irish Anglican priests

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Category:Irish Anglican priests

People of Zhejiang descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, usually we do not categorize people by provinces or cities that their ancestors lived in. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion and this earlier discussion, @Johnpacklambert, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, Fayenatic london, Place Clichy, Prisencolin, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors to those earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the normal way of categorizing by ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and per my usual objections to descent categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per
    Oculi (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment currently is
    WP:SMALLCAT, however no objection to recreation.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If there were more people categorized here I believe it would be a valid category: see Wenzhou#Business_culture:

      Due to both Wenzhou's cultural and geographical remoteness and its lack of natural resources (land, minerals, etc.), the Chinese central government has left the people of Wenzhou relatively autonomous. Away from the center of the political and economic stage, its people are more independent, self-reliant, and generally more business and family oriented. Numerous books have been published about the business sense of people from Wenzhou. Hence, when China switched from its planned economy to its so-called capitalist economy with Chinese (socialist) characteristics in the late 1980s, its people adjusted well to the new system and took advantage of it. A popular common saying calls Wenzhounese the "Jews of the Orient" (东方的犹太人).[citation needed] Wenzhounese have been stereotyped by other Chinese as real estate speculators. China Daily notes that investments from Wenzhounese buyers play a disproportionately large role in the increased property prices all over China.[104]

The people of Wenzhou are thought to be equipped with business sense and a commercial culture more dominant than anywhere else in China. Wenzhou has two economic characteristics: it was the first to launch a market economy, and it continues to have an active and developed private economy.[105]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 2021-02-19 22:18:13 (UTC)
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:17th-century executions by Germany

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Category:17th-century executions by Germany

Category:Stinc Team Members

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) 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No article for the Stinc Team rap group so shouldn't have derived categories. Le Deluge (talk) 10:05, 19 February 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:South Australian Railways locomotives 1–3

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) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous 1-article
WP:SMALLCAT, the individual locomotives lasted less than 20 years before being scrapped so are unlikely to get articles of their own. Le Deluge (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
To clarify: the locomotives would have been the subject of an article according to their class letter, such as D class, which applied to virtually all South Australian Railways locomotives after (if I recall correctly) the 1880s and is the basis on which they are described in Wikipedia. However, they were never allocated to a class because, as the inaugural trio of motive power of the South Australian Railways, they preceded the class system. That's why the title of their Wikipedia article is "South Australian Railways locomotives 1–3". They are, therefore, an element of a larger on-going categorization that is based on locomotive classes. SCHolar44 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there were multiple articles involved here, we'd absolutely consider the merits of the category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 21 February 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.

People from Kilkis (regional unit)

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) 23:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Kilkis (24,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Goumenissa is an interesting case here. It now has 5 articles, 3 of which are from the town of Goumenissa proper (its "community"), and the other 2 are from the municipal unit. A "municipal unit" is a collection of "communities", which are traditional settlements.
It is difficult to decide where to draw the line of what is a "populated place", but I would put it at the municipal unit level, not the community level. And here are my reasons:
Municipal units are of such a size that people don't usually distinguish between the communities. It is common for families to be "scattered" between different communities within a municipal unit. It is also common for only one community in a municipal unit to operate an essential service, like say, a school, especially in the more rural areas, and for the entirety of municipal units children to attend school in this one community. Furthermore, a lot of these communities are physically connected, with the distinction only being made for historical/administrative reasons.
In light of all this, I believe communities are more fit to be considered "suburbs" than independent settlements. And "populated place", when it comes to categorisation by location in Greece, should refer to municipal units, not communities.
I'm from Kastelli, Heraklion, so I will use that example. Kastelli, Polythea, Archangelos and Mathia are some of its communities. Most children in all these four communities attend school in Kastelli. My grandfather is from Mathia, my grandmother from Kastelli (her father was from Kastelli and her mother from Polythea), and my aunt from Polythea. They aren't considered to be from different places, seeing as you can go from one place to the other by foot. Polythea is actually physically a part of Kastelli, just a few minutes' walk from the other side of the town. --Antondimak (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In every country it may be usual to have family members living in neighbouring villages, that does not change the fact that they are separate villages. Family members may also live in a village just across the border of a municipal unit, why would they bother about an administrative border? Place of living of family members is simply not a good criterion to distinguish populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of the things I use as an example. Many communities are also physically linked as I said, and Athens was merged, where we had far more "independent" areas. --Antondimak (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Input on whether we should consider communities of municipal units to be "populated places" would be appreciated, since this will be important in future nominations. There has already been a decision in the case of Athens, where different communities weren't considered distinct populated places, but the rest of Greece (apart from the Thessaloniki) is different and there should be a clear decision in this case. --Antondimak (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 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.

People from Larissa (regional unit)

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) 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Larissa (147,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 19 February 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.

People from Lesbos

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) 01:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Mytilene (30,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Category:Ancient Eresians can belong to multiple categories. And if "People from area A during time B" doesn't belong in "People from area A", I don't know what does. If Ancient Eresians was to be removed from People from Eresos-Antissa, then its members should also be added to People from Eresos-Antissa. --Antondimak (talk) 22:17, 20 February 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:Topics in fiction by work

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) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are not topics in the sense of Fiction by topic. This category (which I created a few years ago) belongs rather in Elements of fiction. Note: I recognise that the wording "Fictional elements" is ambiguous, but there are extensive sibling hierarchies using that naming pattern. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 February 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:Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism

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. There is no consensus which title is preferable,
(non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The term 'sect’ has a negative connotation and I have proposed a category name change to ‘Swaminarayan Hinduism.’ The new title has a general definition and there is an Oxford University Press published book titled ‘Swaminarayan Hinduism’ and another one published by Cambridge University Press titled ‘Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism’, so Swaminarayan Hinduism is a term that seems accepted by scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1203 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)}[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unanimous support for renaming, but still a split between which target is better.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Swaminarayan Hinduism" is commonly used by academics it would be recommendable to rename the article to
    Swaminarayan Hinduism. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 19 February 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:Stanley family (NZ rugby)

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Rugby" is probably a sufficient disambiguator here. Some of the members of the family are Australian, and some played for Samoa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — wondering how this was not noticed by the creator, who initiated the category with all three national sportspeople categories. Also wondering what marvelous process GoF used to find this beastie.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:02, 20 February 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:American academics whose Native American status is seriously disputed

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. The members (Ward Churchill, Andrea Smith (academic), Elizabeth Warren) might perhaps be listed in a relevant article. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Seriously disputed" is a subjective measure. In any case, having the truth of ethnic heritage doubted by someone is not really a defining characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per Johnpacklambert’s comments demonstrating the propensity to use this category to retaliate against living people. That has no place on the project. Per
    WP:BLPCOI: Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 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:Former government ministers of Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete but merge contents to Category:Government ministers of Australia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this category when they are already subdivided into the ministries while they were in office? Snickers2686 (talk) 01:42, 19 February 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:Critics of the Russian Empire

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. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a person-by-occupation category, not a person-by-opinion category. It is for critics from the Russian Empire, not individuals who were critical of the Russian Empire. This ambiguity is a good reason to break from the standard formatting of Category:People of the Russian Empire. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 19 February 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:The CW cable-only affiliates

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) 23:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Broadcast station categories Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:39, 19 February 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:Order of Naval Merit Admiral Padilla

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) 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:PERFCAT
)
When high ranking foreign military leaders have an exercise or joint mission with the Colombian military, the Order of Naval Merit Admiral Padilla is given out as souvenir. US General Peter Pace, Indian diplomat Chandrika Prasad Srivastava, and US Admiral Elmo Zumwalt are not remotely defined by this award. (The stated purpose of the award was to recognize Colombian naval personnal but the only Colombian in this category is Fernando Tapias Stahelin who is well categorized under Category:Colombian generals.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: It's a sustainable pace for me and, more importantly, it leaves other editors clamoring for more! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 20 February 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:Order of Saint Elizabeth

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
The Order of Saint Elizabeth was female order from the Kingdom of Bavaria, although none of the 3 articles in this category are Bavarian women. 1 article mentions this award in passing and 2 don't mention it at all so it doesn't seem defining. (There are more articles we could add but they aren't defined by the award either.) The recipients are already listed right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 19 February 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_February_19&oldid=1013752912"