Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Category:Liberalism in the Republican Party (United States)[edit]

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) 03:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective category. These type of categories have been deleted[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 2] in the past[1]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "liberalism" here means not "modern liberalism" in the context of American politics, but literally a centrist or center-right 'liberal'. In particular, the Liberal factions, including the Rockefeller Republican Party, are distinctly distinct from the conservative Republicans, including neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. This category must be maintained. --Storm598 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, this category is different from 'American conservatives' or 'American liberals'. In the U.S., "liberalism" refers to center-left modern liberalism(or social liberalism) and includes center-left or left, which is close to social democracy.(ex. Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, etc.) However, "liberalism" used to refer to center-right liberals in the United States is clearly the same as "liberalism" in Europe, Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. Liberals within the U.S. Republican Party are modern liberals, but there are certainly modern liberals and other classical liberals or liberals with conservative tendencies. This is qualitatively different from liberalism(=modern liberalism) in the U.S. Democratic Party. --Storm598 (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, check out our existing 'Category:Liberalism in the United States'. Unlike other liberal categories in other countries, it has a 'social liberalism' category. In the United States, general liberalism and Republican conservative liberalism are distinctly different.--Storm598 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, and per the category creator's "explanation" above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while there were relatively more moderate Republicans, bluntly attaching the label liberalism to them goes too far. If kept, rename to something like Category:Moderate Republicans. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept of 'Liberal Republicans' actually exists. This is not just a relatively concept.--Storm598 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The term "liberalism" is now used so widely in US politics that it as no useful meaning. It seems to include everything left of the far right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 28 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:American conservative liberals[edit]

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) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV category. What is a conservative liberal? BTW these type of categories[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 2] have been deleted in the past[ ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a category for centrist or centre-right conservative liberals distinct from ordinary neoconservatives, right-wing populists or modern liberals is essential. The term "liberalism", commonly referred to in the United States, refers to "modern liberalism", but sometimes uses the term "liberalism" when referring to centre-right liberals in European or other regional contexts. The two are very different concepts in context. And even in the United States, right-wing liberals are also clearly referred to as liberals(or classical liberals). Republican liberals like Larry Hogan are in a very vague position that cannot be categorized as 'modern liberals' or 'conservatives'.--Storm598 (talk) 00:14, 27 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:Songs written by Roy Butterfield[edit]

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) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both Roy Butterfield and the sole entry are redirects, and as such serves no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 23:15, 26 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:Songs written by Noël Greig[edit]

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) 03:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one redirect, and as such serves no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 23:12, 26 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:Songs written by Eddie Jobson[edit]

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) 03:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one redirect, and as such serves no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 23:05, 26 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:To-do list templates for WikiProjects[edit]

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) 03:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of the items in this category are in the Wikipedia namespace rather than the Template namespace. Many of them are functional and used as pages in their own right, rather than being used merely via transclusion. Whether or not they are actually transcluded seems arbitrary and unlikely to change their essential nature. It is more useful to have non-transcluded lists and transcluded lists in the same category. Daask (talk) 21:53, 26 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:Tangut Buddhist texts[edit]

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 to Category:Tangut texts. If more articles about Tangut Buddhist texts are created, this can be reassessed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: dual merge, only one article in the category. The Tangut language has been extinct for some centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I would not mind keeping the category when an editor would write a separate article about every book in the list. However it is an extremely specialist topic and I think the chance that this happens any time soon is very small. Meanwhile keeping this category with no navigational benefit is not helpful to anyone. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but perhaps to Category:Tangut texts only. The language has been extinct for 500 years. It is doubtful whether we are going to get articles on another 750 texts, but if we do we can alwayds recreate the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 2 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.

Category:Division d'Honneur players[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Division d'Honneur category is not very specific in itself. "Division d'Honneur" is the name that has been given to several tiers of the French football pyramid throughout history. From 1971 to 1978 it was the fourth tier, from 1978 to 1993 the fifth, and since 1993 the sixth (if I am correct). Plus, it's not even called Division d'Honneur anymore the sixth tier, it's called the Regional 1. Having this category is really confusing and vague. Perhaps we could split it by years but I think this is getting complicated so therefore I would just delete this category. Plus, it's not like it's super important, there are only a few articles here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. The fact that these players played in Division d'Honneur, if defining for them, is not changed by the fact that this level was renamed. I'm not sure how it would be defining for a player to play at this lower amateur level, but heck there are 21 subcategories in Footballers in England by competition so why not. From the few I looked up they seem to be international players from lower tier countries for which amateur play in France may indeed be the highest level they ever reached, so that would be defining for them. Place Clichy (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Place Clichy: Do you agree it should be renamed to Category:Régional 1 players as well? Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Vaurie: as you hinted yourself, the scope and value of this level evolved through time and it is hard to establish equivalence between a 4th or 5th or 6th level in the pyramid at different periods of time. I would suggest to keep players having played in a championship called Division d'Honneur in Category:Division d'Honneur players and put other players in a new Category:Régional 1 players. This does not need CfD by the way. I believe this is in line with other football player categories in other countries. There may be an ambiguity issue with other identically named championships in other sports but I do not think we have enough players notable enough for a category so the issue may be moot. Place Clichy (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: My personal opinion is that we should rename the category Regional 1 players and only include players that played in it post-1993. By the way, I checked every article, they all played in the division since it has been the 6th tier. A simple move is good in my opinion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy and Paul Vaurie: standard practice when a league (or team) changes name is to change the article/category name to reflect the change, but keep in players who played under the 'old' name. There is no reason to depart from that here. GiantSnowman 10:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Sorry, GS, but what do you mean by "no reason to depart from that here"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your idea of having two categories for the same division in a situation where the division has merely changed name is against standard practice. GiantSnowman 11:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's precisely the point: the name Division d'honneur was in use at least from 1931 to 2017 for levels of play that are not all equivalent to the current Régional 1. It would therefore be incorrect to use the current name for players having played at these different levels, although I agree with User:GiantSnowman that it would be correct to use the more recent name only if this was merely a change of name without a change of level. You could call this an issue of retroactive compatibility. I am therefore still in favour of keeping the category at its current name and creating a new Category:Régional 1 players when appropriate. Place Clichy (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Place Clichy: @GiantSnowman: @Marcocapelle: Perhaps the best solution is that we should keep this category as it is, but only include players that played when it was called Division d'Honneur, and make a new category for Regional 1 players for those that played only in the division since 2017? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK for me. Place Clichy (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as the scope of the category/ies and article/s is made clear, I have no issue with this. GiantSnowman 18:19, 11 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.

Category:Caribbean people by country[edit]

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) 03:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Caribbean people by nationality. Categories of people diffused by country use by nationality. Nothing to merge. Place Clichy (talk) 20:52, 26 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:Emmett Till[edit]

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This should be changed to Images of Emmett Till or something of the sort because no pages are in the category, just image files related to Emmett Till DemonStalker (talk) 15:45, 26 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.

Establishments in Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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. I am assuming that those who !voted to "merge" meant "rename". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
69 subcats of the above
Nominator's rationale: Un-needed disambiguation. Jammu and Kashmir (state) and Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) do not overlap chronologically. The state was abolished in 2019 and the union territory was created in its place.
Therefore, the disambiguators are superfluous. "2020 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir" unambiguously means the union territory, and "1960s establishments in Jammu and Kashmir" unambiguously means the state.
The other chronology categories for J&K don't include a disambiguator. See e.g. Category:1950s in Jammu and Kashmir or Category:2020s in Jammu and Kashmir.
There is no Category:Jammu and Kashmir (state) and Category:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of Establishments in Jammu and Kashmir[edit]
  • Comment - there is Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) as well. Oculi (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As this is the same area which changed political status but not name throughout (recent) history, this type of disambiguation is clearly overkill for chronology categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- It is all the same place. We do not need to split it as a result of a change in status. This should also apply to the Princely State. Yes the boundaries may have varied (with loss of Azad Kashmir at partition) and (perhaps) of part of Ladakh conquered by China. We do not need to split places every time there is a change of government or constitution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 2 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.

Category:Seminary of Saint-Sulpice (Paris) alumni[edit]

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) 03:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Saint-Sulpice Seminary (Issy-les-Moulineaux) has had multiple locations throughout its history, including in Paris and currently in Issy-les-Moulineaux. There are multiple articles in the French Wikipedia for at least two of these locations. This category should clarify that it includes all alumni of the seminary, regardless of where in France it was located at the time. Ergo Sum 05:45, 26 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 Imperial Order of the Yoke and Arrows[edit]

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) 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining Francoist award. People like Francisco Franco, Hans Lammers, and Adolfo Suárez are far better known for other things. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 26 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:Prix mondial Cino Del Duca winners[edit]

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) 03:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining literary award. After checking several bios, I determined that this award, while prestigious, tends to be awarded to people who are far better known for other things, such as Vaclav Havel, Yaşar Kemal, Lewis Mumford, Andrei Sakharov, Mario Vargas Llosa, etc. It tends to get a passing mention and/or is listed with other awards. Already listified at the main article. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 26 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 Order of the Cross of Vytis[edit]

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) 02:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Lithuanian award, does not appear to be defining for either Lithuanian or foreign recipients. Tends to be mentioned in lists of awards or briefly in running text. People like Jonas Noreika, Vincas Vitkauskas, or Vytautas Landsbergis-Žemkalnis are much better known for other things. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Listify Refreshingly, the recipients are mostly Lithuanian but the articles don't treat that as defining. I was concerned that could be a problem with English Wikipedia so I looked at the first three articles alphabetically in Lithuanian Wikipedia: 1, 2, & 3. Two of those three articles don't even mention the award and one mentions it in passing. (The category contents should be listified within Order of the Cross of Vytis though, where I can assist.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Lithuania. Clearly defining. Ludicrous nomination and suggests that some editors are determined to delete all categories for awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lithuanian equivalent of the Medal of Honor. Furius (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant Lithuanian award that conferred important distinctions on its recipients. There is a very real problem that the criteria for nominating is by reading a few of the biographies listed, rather than any academic understanding of what the awards are and what roles they played in their recipients lives. Our biographies are inherently non-reliable sources, often incomplete and of varying quality. To make judgements based on them regarding 'defining' is WP:OR, and a serious lack of competence. We really need to consider what 'defining' actually means in these terms, not just 'our biographies only mention in passing' - what kind of mention is sufficient to count as defining, and is an absence of that mention more a reflection on our article than on the honour itself? Spokoyni (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia categories are navigational tools for lay readers to find related articles so whether those readers will find any actual content on the category topic is absolutely central. Totally agree though that stub/start articles aren't useful in that assessment. - RevelationDirect (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a total violation of our overcat by award rules. Categories like this have lead to insane amounts of category clutter and need to be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 10 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.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Stara Planina[edit]

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) 02:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining award, seems to be awarded mostly to foreign dignitaries, but bios of Bulgarian recipients such as Musa Manarov, Rangel Valchanov, Yordan Radichkov, etc. don't treat it as defining either. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Listify The award is not defining as a diplomatic souvenir, which seems to be the primary use. There's not a main article on this category but I'd still rather listify the contents within the Orders, decorations, and medals of Bulgaria, where I can assist. -
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Bulgaria. Clearly defining. Ludicrous nomination and suggests that some editors are determined to delete all categories for awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the majority of the total number of awards might be issued domestically, the majority of notable recipients appear to be foreign. WP:OCAWARD guides us to look at the latter: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A little tricky. Before 2003, this was an award for foreign diplomats. Since 2003 it has been the top award for Bulgarians and also awarded to foreigners. I have the same objections as with the other categories for the latter award. However, we don't even have an article for the award, so it can probably go. Furius (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as we get more people receiving the newer awards, I'm certainly to open to re-evaluating this one at a later date. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:24, 29 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 Order of Georgi Dimitrov[edit]

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) 02:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be awarded mostly to foreign Communist dignitaries who are far better known for other accomplishments; listed with other awards or not at all. Not remotely defining for Erich Mielke, Josip Broz Tito, Leonid Brezhnev, etc. (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.* Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Major state honour usually awarded to citizens of Bulgaria. Clearly defining. Ludicrous nomination and suggests that some editors are determined to delete all categories for awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the majority of the total number of awards might be issued domestically, the majority of notable recipients appear to be foreign. WP:OCAWARD guides us to look at the latter: "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you guys are copy-pasting the same comments into literally all of these discussions is a clear sign that they should have been bundled together. Furius (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comments aren't generally boilerplate, but my replies sometimes are. Historically, group nominations get bogged down with disagreements on which similar (but different) awards should be grouped. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point, I suppose. I saw a little while ago that you're keeping track of cats that have been deleted, does that also mean that your keeping track of ones that have been proposed and kept? Furius (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was tracking the diplomatic souvenirs ones specifically. It's been awhile since one of my noms didn't pass but that's because I was focusing on obscure often local awards whose categories were pretty egregious. Buidhe's approach is different. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that most of the notable recipients of it that aren't foreign dignitaries doesn't mean that award isn't defining, it just means that enwiki REALLY needs to translate more articles from other wikis because only the most famous recipients of the award (like Soviet heads of state and cosmonauts) have it. When such articles are properly written, listifying them all will be outright tedious. Better to have as a category.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is the tediousness of the work, I volunteer to set up the initial list. - RevelationDirect (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant award that conferred important distinctions on its recipients. There is a very real problem that the criteria for nominating is by reading a few of the biographies listed, rather than any academic understanding of what the awards are and what roles they played in their recipients lives. Our biographies are inherently non-reliable sources, often incomplete and of varying quality. To make judgements based on them regarding 'defining' is WP:OR, and a serious lack of competence. Spokoyni (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a total violation of our overcat by award rules. Categories like this have lead to insane amounts of category clutter and need to be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 10 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26

Leave a Reply