The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Speedy merge as obvious duplicate. Pichpich (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (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:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule[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.
Nominator's rationale: Vague and overly broad. Given the Supreme Court's practice of self-selecting the cases it will consider, the preponderance of cases decided are likely to overrule something, be it a legislative or congressional enactment, an executive or administrative decision, a ruling by a lower court, or an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court itself. This seems better suited to several lists such as the existing List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions rather than a single list or category. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Virtually every Supreme Court decision can be said to either overrule or uphold something, and I'm not sure what value there would be in this-or-that categories. Then again, we do have Category:Men and Category:Women... --BDD (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sufficiently defining due to the missing word at the end and too many possible interpretations. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List of overruled supreme court decisions does everything that this category wants but fails to do. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is far too unclear on inclusion criteria. Did Employment Division v. Smith overrule, or did it not? Some would say a mong other things it overruled Yoder, but in the decision they insisted they were being faithful to Yoder. Of course this was only at all possible by pretending Yoder said something it never said, so the issue is more complexed. At a minimum is this for cases over-ruling what the next lowest court said, cases that overrule existing precedents, cases that overrule some lower decision in the case, or some combination of factors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-defining. --KarlB (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2012 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As noted in the category page, the term castle here is a bit of a misnomer resulting from translating the Thai word ปราสาท as castle. Although castle is translated as ปราสาท in Thai, ปราสาท in its original meaning actually refers to structures with elaborate tiered roofs rather than fortified structures as is the meaning of castle. All the articles in the category are Khmer temples, so the category should be renamed as such. Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Castles are military fortresses, not religious places as these are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2012 (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:Member of American Legislative Exchange Council[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:Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Not a defining characteristic of the person or organization. If not deleted, someone has to go through the tags to remove the sort tags "Corporate member" and "Former corporate member" (at least one of which is a former legislative member). — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subcategories are being created. This nomination should apply to all of those, as well. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. One of hundreds of organizations to which businesses and/or people can belong, in no way defining. Possibly justifiable as a list, but not a category. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the creator of the category. Granted there are formatting errors in the layout of the sub-categories. I welcome assistance in the wikiformatting to help the layout problem. That is a technical problem in a category that is less than a day old. Beyond that, this subject is very active in the news today--as a long-term behavior defining characteristic of the politicians and corporations involved. A quick GN search showed 190 current articles on the subject. Without going into the details of all that discussion, the sheer volume of hits shows this subject is significant. All of the sourcing for all of the current members of this category relate directly back to the contents of the article, most of which are clearly identified by the organization's own website. Essentially this category serves exactly what a WP category should do: cross-referencing related individual articles. Trackinfo (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The categories have now been fixed. Trackinfo (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not related.
Even if ALEC is particularly important among the 1000s of lobbying groups which propose legislation, membership and/or former membership is not a defining characteristic of the members. For example, does the fact that Coca-Cola Corporation is or was a "member" of ALEC something that you a reasonable person would want to know about it. I would say it has no significance, and doesn't even belong in the article. It being a category requires more significance than that.
Keep - category is very much defining in the context of the ALEC and current United States legislative politics. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Orangemike. And, this category seems useful and informative for the encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not saying that ALEC doesn't deserve an article; just that members should not be so denoted unless it's a significant event with respect to that member. As noted in WP:CAT,
The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.
If kept, there are so many more things that need to be done with it, that I'm not sure that's the place to start. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic of a topic. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted. If kept, however, all the pipes to "former" and "current" need to be removed. If it is necessary to separate current and former members, two separate subcats can be created. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additionally, implement Bushranger's speedy rename, and distinguish, probably through the use of subcategories, between current and former members. The subcategory distinction between corporate and personal members also seems useful. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify and if kept definitely do not differentiate between former and current members (i.e., delete the subcategories that have already been created—bad idea to do this before the discussion has even ended). By many consensus discussions, we have agreed that categories should not differentiate between former and current status, which is why a list would be ideal here. We can't categorize people and organizations by every group they belong to. In this case, it's simply not a defining characteristic for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orange Mike and Salty Boatr. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nominator. This organisation is currently the subject of political controversy in the United Sates, but membership of this organisation is not a defining characteristic of the topics categorised in it. The solution is to preserve the information in a list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not generally define people by membership in a specific business related organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see a purpose if this were supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIC list of everyone and everything that has at some point been associated with ALEC. It is not. As constituted it is a naked attempt to use Wikipedia as a noticeboard for an advocacy campaign, a "tally board" for a boycott, to identify "targets" and "effects"; otherwise corporate and former corporate would not be the immediate subcategories. Good example of what Wikipedia IS NOT.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a category that can never be accurate or completed. For example: Are people who were legislators but are no longer (even decades ago) to be categorized as members? Were they once members, but have since resigned or quit? They are currently given this category. The cat is also apparently randomly thrown into BLPs. Every year hundreds of local legislators are elected, defeated, die or retire. How are we to accurately keep this category? It is a mess and should go. If membership is important in the biography of a legislator it should be mentioned in the article. If it is not important and can't be verified it shouldn't be cat'd. In summary bad use of category. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As BrownHairedGirl notes above, this organization currently is the subject of political controversy in the United Sates. Apparently, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) worked to advance the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) agenda to guide passage of the "Stand Your Ground” law which now is being publicized with the Trayvon Martin killing.[1] While increased interest in ALEC may help improve Wikipedia's coverage of ALEC, Wikipedia itself needs to not take an active roll in the political controversy. Regarding the category standards, from Wikipedia:Category#Overview:
"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
No one above has listed any essential - defining - characteristics of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) organization that defines even one person categorized in the Member of ALEC. No one above has explained why a reader, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of the ALEC organization, would find any use in being able to browse and quickly find a member of the ALEC organization where there is no reliable source that establishes that member is defined by those ALEC characteristics. Rather, this category appears to be a political WP:NOTADVOCATE effort to have Wikipedia itself define people with characteristics of the ALEC organization by categorizing those people in Category:Member of American Legislative Exchange Council. Wikipedia should not be use for political advocacy. The category should be deleted. The information should not be listified without first verifying via coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the ALEC subject. If someone wants the information, userfying rather than listifying would be a better action at this time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When this category was created, there were numerous news articles asking "Who is ALEC?" As WP is a reference source, this seemed like a logical function for WP to take on, to identify who are the ALEC members. I carefully listed the members who through their leadership, active membership or resignations have firmly identified themselves with ALEC. Most do so on ALEC's main website--its sourced. Since ALEC has nearly a 40 year history of legislative proposals, there is a lengthy legacy. One's current status in time does not remove them from their legacy with the organization and its accomplishments. Those accomplishments are made through the wide cooperation of many members. There is a clear linkage, a unity of actions from state to state and thus as a unified force, across the nation and ultimately beyond the United States borders. Whether you choose to define that legacy of accomplishments in a positive or negative light is YOUR OWN interpretation or POV. WP is devoted to facts. This categorization is a collection of facts. Trackinfo (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How have members "THROUGH THEIR ...RESIGNATIONS" identified themselves with ALEC? The question for a boycott campaign is who. For an encyclopedia it is probably WHAT. If you want to inform by listing Legislation, that may be constructive, but creating a list of who is in and who is resigning, which is what you did, is not.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP209: you are artificially placing too high a threshold for information conveyed by a category. These details can be explained in the linked articles. Without the linkage of identifying these individuals are acting as part of a larger organization, their activities might just be coincidental and random. "Who is in" is a current status. These legislators have a legislation submission history and a public voting record. Having this history, both before and after the resignation can show what the organization has accomplished and how--even necessarily how it has evolved over several decades. 209; you have been very active attacking, I'll call it sanitizing, many articles related to ALEC based on the quality of sources. This category will aid others to do their own research, including real, reliable source journalists to step back through history and tie things together. This is an educational tool. Trackinfo (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAT sets a high threshold for "information conveyed by a category." You seem to be ignoring that guideline. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 04:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, I am not ignoring that at all, though I have avoided the banter you as the nominator were engaging in for a long time. Your saying they are not related, does not make it so. This list currently includes the current or recently current leadership of the organization (including its corporate members). Yes, maybe you can argue a future entry might be a lesser significant member . . . a non-player. But this is the public direction of the organization and in the case of recently resigned corporate members, they still have a legacy of their participation in the organization--from a leadership level. The organization is now getting a great deal of coverage across a wide variety of sources. The inner workings of the organization, as discussed, proposed and executed by its membership, is a huge part of that coverage. You casually comment "so much more" can be done. Probably yes that is true, but that would then get into POV assertions and sub-categorization as to exactly what each of these individuals contributed. That kind of stuff can be included in the individual articles, but the linkage between their cooperation, through the organization is a visible component. Trackinfo (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at present about a third of members of state legislatures are in this body. Are we really ready to start categorizing members of state legislatures by various nation-wide advocacy groups they may belong to?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We categorize them by their political parties now. Thats an even larger group. You said it, this is nation-wide. Advocacy group or lobby, whatever we ultimately end up calling ALEC (the POV folks have ideas and spin on both sides), they are clearly a major political force--with its immense size, the scope of its successes or failed attempts over ~40 years has not yet been clearly defined. To track it, we need to label the members of it which is what this category does. The next step will be for journalists and political scientists to cross-reference to their actions. Trackinfo (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making statements like "To track it, we need to label the members of it which is what this category does." One of the points that has repeatedly been made in this discussion is that we actually do not "need" a category to "track" this information. There are other means within the WP system for it to be "tracked". Your opinion appears to be that a category is desireable to track it, but I do not think it's correct to say that a category is the only way to do it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, a Category, or your "other means," I am guessing you mean listing, are simply different ways people use to aid users in the navigation of WP. So why to favor one vs another? Ultimately both can be used, they result in very much the same thing, a unified page were all the matching information is contained. Making a category is probably the least obtrusive and simplest way to accomplish this organization, but the same thing can be accomplished with a list and wikilinks. Probably both is better. Trackinfo (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer and favor a list because I don't believe that this information is "defining" for the members: see WP:DEFINING. Another reason is that on WP we generally do not attempt to categorize people or organizations by every group they are or were members of, because doing so would create "category clutter" in very many cases. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories, as I understand it, are supposed to be critical , non-controversial information about a subject. The guideline suggests that if the information is important enough to be in the lead section it is potentially a good category. The recommendation is to list (not categorize) controversial information. Here we have a category assigned to those for whom it may be less important than Rotary or bowling league membership, and no easy way to verify membership. Membership in a party provides critical, non-controversial, verifiable information. This category, in contrast, seems controversial, non-defining, and difficult to verify. I'd suggest a list. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the justification that "To track it, we need to label the members of it which is what this category does." belies the intent behind this category. To use Wikipedia as a noticeboard for a political campaign to boycott ALEC, yes you need to "track" members, etc, but there is little other reason for this. Classic example of what Wikipedia IS NOT. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (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:Grand National Party and Category:Grand National Party politicians[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename as the party itself has changed its name (see Saenuri Party). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I nominated this incorrectly since I misunderstood the process and entered this manually rather than substituting the nomination template - hopefully it's not too much of a problem... --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy rename to match the head article. --KarlB (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel(talk) 05:21, 25 April 2012 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Moving this to a slightly more general title would allow for articles about Kickstarter itself to be categorised here in addition to projects funded by it. The alternative (a new parent category) would be unwieldy as almost all categorised pages would be in a single subcat. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are more than enough article on projects to justify the existence of Category:Kickstarter projects. If the purpose of renaming is to allow inclusion of "articles about Kickstarter itself", then I would presume that there are enough such articles to justify renaming to the more general title ... but the nominator then says there aren't, which seems a bit contradictory. So far as I can see, the only article(s) about Kickstarter itself are a) the head article, b) possibly (at a stretch) Andy Baio. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is illogical to have a category derived from a common element and then to exclude that element from the category. I can't think of any other examples of such a thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's exactly the case with people. We have eponymous categories for only a very limited set of people (per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS), but we lots of categories under Category:Works by creator ... and the overwhelming majority of those categories do not have a category for the creator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking at that, we use {{cat main}} to flag the artist in those cases. That would be perfectly suitable here (with the exception that {{kickstarter}} is somewhat incongruous in that category, but should be used on every one of the pages within) and I'm happy to withdraw. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Triple intersection of LGBT people, Black people and British people. There does not appear to be a category tree for LGBT black people. Tim! (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This intersection is a relevant one. Many black LGBT people in the UK say that they face a lot of hostility to their sexuality from their families, acquaintances and community. A high proportion of the black people in the UK are extracted from parts of the world with cultures that are very anti-LGBT, such as Jamaica, Nigeria and Somalia. Jim Michael (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per wp:CATGRS#Special_subcategories, a category such as this "should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created".
Do you have any evidence that this category meets those criteria? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless somebody can create an article which details that LGBT Black British people constitute a community distinct from LGBT British people as a whole, with its own distinct culture and its own distinct encyclopedic context whose uniqueness is distinctly verifiableinreliable sources, delete per nom. The mere fact of facing homophobic reactions from one's own ethnic community is not sufficient, unless you can prove that the specific intersection of ethnic background and sexuality is itself notable in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete the very comment about drawing culture from Somalia and Jamaica shows this is an unacceptable racial category. We do not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (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.
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.
Delete. LGBT Wikiproject has previously discussed and agreed that it is not useful to intersect the individual L, G, B and T subtrees with individual nationalities; accordingly, this category is not desirable under either name. "LGBT people from individual country" with no subgroup differentiation yes; "Transgender and transsexual people" with no national differentiation yes; "Transgender and transsexual people from individual country" no. Membership in the broadly-constituted English LGBT community as a whole is notable, and membership in the internationally-constituted community of transgender and transsexual people is notable — but the fact that somebody is specifically an "English transsexual", as opposed to a Scottish or German or Canadian or New Zealand or Pakistani transsexual, is not notable enough to warrant a separate category. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:RafikiSykes has recently created a bunch of by-nationality subcategories for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and so forth: see here. This is one of them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:PlainSense The category "English Transsexuals" would be seen as offensive by people such as Stephen Whittle to whom I've seen it applied. It is also fraught with problems of accuracy. Terms of identification within the trans community are very complex and to presume to label someone as transsexual without knowing for sure whether this is the correct label for their circumstances and wishes is just bad. Also, trans people are not reducible to such a simplistic category. I came across this instance in the context of seeing an LGBT category removed, only to be replaced with a transsexual one. My professional knowledge of the person and the subject in question indicates this to be misleading, since they are also a recognised figure within the LGBT world too. I would be in favour of the original proposal above, however, so long as that is not at the cost of trans people of note being removed from the umbrella LGBT category. —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
Rename no issue with the rename suggested above.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge to both parents, i.e. to Category:LGBT people from England and Category:Transgender and transsexual people. This category is not just overly specific ( per the LGBT project), it also uses terminology which trans people find offensive (per Plainsense's comment); trans people prefer those terms to be used as adjectives. We don't refer to "blacks", but may refer to "black people", because the adjectival form clarifies that skin color is one of a person's attributes, not their whole identity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 28 April 2012 (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 Red Cross Medal of Appreciation (Thailand)[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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a very common award, given to anyone who has donated blood 50 times, among others, and is not useful as a categorization scheme. Paul_012 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does the nominator have any reference to support that description of the award? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining characteristic.--Lenticel(talk) 03:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per KarlB's evidence as a non-defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with awards the category needs to be proven to be useful. Until we see an article anywhere that tells us what the criteria to recieve this award are, we should delete the category for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2012 (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 150 Years Commemoration of Bangkok Medal[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.
Nominator's rationale: All Thai nationals are entitled to wear such commemorative medals, making the categorization scheme useless. Paul_012 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does the nominator have any reference to support the claim that all Thai nationals are entitled to wear such commemorative medals? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Paul, but that doesn't quite answer the question for me. The rules I have seen for Members of the Order of the British Empire also specify when the medal may be worn, but restrictions on when to wear them don't tell us who is given them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment this may be of use: [2]. If we want to avoid overcategorization, we should come to consensus on which medals merit a category, and which do not. --KarlB (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank sfor the link, but I don't think it helps much. It lists the hierarchy of medals, but it doesn't tell us who got one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment note this category too: Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. I'm not sure what is the standard of "defining" that is applied to awards, and when a category can be created for a particular award. However, I'm also not sure if I agree with Paul that any thai citizen can wear this commemorative medals. Given it's presence on a list of awards by the prime minister's office, it suggests that it is a ranking conferred upon someone; while it seems you can now purchase these medals online, it doesn't mean you were awarded that medal. I guess the question is, how many people in Thailand received the 25th Buddhist Century Celebration Medal for example. Perhaps we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject_Awards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals for assistance or standards of notability here? --KarlB (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not exactly easy finding English-language sources that satisfy Wikipedia's RS criteria, but just to give a bit of background: I do know for a fact that when these "medals for commemorative occasions" are issued, they are put on sale publicly by the Royal Treasury Department, available to all to collect, wear, display, etc. While the decorations and other medals higher up on the list are only awarded on certain circumstances and such citations are published in the Royal Government Gazette, commemorative medals are not. Maybe I should have translated the above passage from the Act as "Persons are entitled to wear..." The usage of terms in the law here is such that it is implied that persons refers to anyone. Some commemorative medals have more explicit restrictions, such as requiring that the person be born prior to the issue of the medal, but otherwise I can confirm that all these medals are granted to all. To give an example, civil service officers who haven't been granted any decorations will wear a ribbon bar consisting of these medals on their uniforms. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page notes how commemorative medals are presented to "qualified general public". (I think "qualified" here refers to certain criteria such as the aforementioned birth date restriction.) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment well certainly any medal that is not awarded is not defining, so I agree to delete any of those.--KarlB (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all To keep award cats people need to show they are justified in some unique way. No one has shown such for these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (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.
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.
Comment this looks like a technical reason for deletion, perhaps a less dramatic solution would work? (the category itself looks viable and meaningful) Sasha (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. There is no Category:Songs by film, and I see no reason to start categorising songs by film, because it would lead to category clutter on some songs. Categorising songs by a film on which we don't even have a head article seems like a poor idea (Yessongs (film) redirects to Yessongs). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: taking into account the 27 sub-cat-s of Category:Songs from films, is your opinion still the same? Thanks, Sasha (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still support merger, for the reasons set out below by Oculi. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Yessongs (film) is just a film of one of their concerts (Yessongs is a live album recorded at several concerts) and I can't see that anything is added by the category that is not already covered (better) in Yessongs. Moreover being in Yessongs (film) is not a defining characteristic of the songs as the film is not mentioned in any of the song articles. Oculi (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoCategory:Yes (band) songs. I agree with the rationale of nominator and with Oculi's reasons above, but merger will ensure that none of these articles are omitted from Category:Yes (band) songs. They all appear to be duplicate-categorised for now, but that may not still be the case when the discussion is closed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (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.
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 to Category:Polar regions of the Earth. There's no support for the current title and numerous alternatives proposed but this one has the most support. Revisit if necessary Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Because "Pole" is a disambiguation page, I think something might need to be done with this category name. It's not about Polish people, nor is it a parent category for flagpoles, totem poles, stripper poles, Maypoles or any of those types of "poles". However, I am not sure that "geographical poles" is the best name, since technically I think that terminology could exclude concepts of magnetic poles or other poles that do not correspond with the north and south poles of rotation. If anyone has a possible name they want to float, we could consider it here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it were "Geographical poles", it would cover both Earth poles and poles on other astronomical bodies that rotate. As the article says, geographical poles are points "on the surface of a rotating planet (or other rotating body)". From what I can see, the category currently covers Earth and other astronomical bodies, but most of the content is about Earth, of course. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Geographical" can be used to refer strictly to Earth, since off-Earth geography have several different terms to cover the field. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but in this case it doesn't in the WP article and therefore there probably would be no implication that a WP category so named would be limited to Earth. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Poles (geography). --KarlB (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy renametoCategory:Poles (geograpical) - while it can refer strictly to Earth, it's also the most commonly used term overall, and "geographical" instead of "geography" would make it clearer that magnetic poles are included. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment: do not rename to anything with 'geographical' in it. See Geographical pole which clearly states it only means the poles on the axis of rotation and specicifically excludes magnegic poles from 'geographical' Same I suppose with 'geography' Yet Poles of astronomical bodies exactly describes what is in this category. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's horrid. "Polar locations" usually (on Earth) means locations in within the Arctic or Antarctic Circles. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what much of what the category contains—articles and subcategories about the polar regions of the Earth. It's not limited to containing articles about the poles themselves. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (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.
