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. Bottom line is that the delete case is stronger. However there were opinions on both sides to listify. Listifying the contents meets the spirit of both the delete and keep opinions. Also a list can help explain the pre/post 1975 changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This award at present is only granted to foreign (non-Swedish) heads of state. By their very nature this will be people who are in way too many award categories. This category is in almost all cases going to be one of many awards categories. This is category clutter we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. Articles about people should be categorized by what the person is notable for (usually their occupation/status), not by what awards they have received. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments may be more notable than some awards, but they are still not what the person is notable for (e.g. it's not usually mentioned in the lead of the Wikipedia article). It's unnecessary for each article to contain two lists of what awards the person has received, one list in the article text (neatly laid out, with information such as dates where appropriate and with references) and another list made up of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (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 Prince Yaroslav the Wise, 5th class
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 If there is anything that violates the rules against overcategorization by award, it is having an award category for the 5th and lowest sub-cat of an award. This leads to needless category clutter, as we see in the case of Yury Luzhkov who is in 16 awards categories. This is just too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a national award. We commonly allow categories for them. However, perhaps where the award is given to a foreign politician, probably to butter him up, rather than as a recognition of servives to the nation, we should do some purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That approach does not work. I tried removing Dwight D. Eisenhower from the 50 awards categories he was in because without them he is in 30 categories which is probably still too many, and was reverted on it. People are not likely to accept limited application of award cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 5th rank down of a national award. When people like Luzhkov have as many awards as they do something has to be done about category clutter. This is not the top of the award, but the lowest of five classes of the award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Ask: For why mentioned Luzhkov? This is one of the highest awards of Ukraine. And this award IS NOT 5th rank down of a national award. It's simply graduation of order, NOT a rank among national awards. Vanquisher.UA(talk)20:31, 11 September 2013 (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 This is the 4th highest medal given by the armed forces, by some measures. Award categories should really be limited at the very least to the top medals in a class, which this is not. It leads to category clutter, because it is put on articles that are about people who are not at all notable for having been in the armed services, let alone for having won this metal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of 32 award categories that Douglas MacArthur is in. This is not a workable way to categorize people. These people are not in most cases if any notable for having received this award. It is leading to category clutter which we need to cut down on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument for speedy keep. I really think we should delete every category below the congressional medal of honor for US military awards. Everything else is less prestigious, especially with how willingly they handed out awards in Vietnam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate defining characteristic and an effective aid to navigation for recipients of this "metal" ( [sic], though I guess that Bronze is both a medal and a metal). Invariably there will be cases where individuals such as Douglas MacArthur receive many awards, medals and honors, and so be it; he's earned those categories and it hardly seems necessary to wag the dog because of one person at the distant end of the tail. Alansohn (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People are not categorized because they "earned" something. Categorization is meant to be useful, and when someone is in 32 award categories it clearly is not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People are categorized by defining characteristics like this one. Can you explain why any category should be deleted because one person fits into many of them? Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2013 (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 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 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 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: That a type of habitat is mentioned in the UK's biodiversity action plan is not a WP:DEFINING characeristic of that habitat - especially where a habitat (e.g. deep-water coral) is not specific to the UK. Note: The list (in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan article) includes many things (e.g. Rivers) that clearly should not be in any country-specific category. Note: If kept, this category should be renamed to avoid the "BAP" acronym as it may not be familiar to many people. DexDor (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate but rename to Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. -- This is a difficult one. If kept, it should be Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. As I understand it, these are types of habitat that are scarce in UK, and thus require particular study and conservation. The problem is that most of the potential articles are red-linked. Others such as rivers and ponds are common in many countries and not adequately defined and for them it is a mere performance category. However Calaminarian grassland and Purple moor grass and rush pastures may well be useful to have in a priority habitats category. The fact that they are identified as priority habitats is likely to indicate that they are internationally scarce. Deep-water corals, also known as cold-water corals occur on the European Continental Shelf. The origin of the coral beaches on the west of Ireland and off Norway has only been recognised in the past 30 years: this is not the common corals of the tropics. I suspect that propulating the category better should not be too difficult, by converting some the red-links to redirects (or redirects with possibilities). For example Lowland heath is a nationally scarce habitat, but we have an article on Heath, which is a worldwide one and might be forked to provide such an article. Sorry, I cannot do this, as I am not qualified to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (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 per WP:OC/U in addition to being an empty category. A category for users who have simply read an authors work is irrelevant to encyclopedia-building in my opinion. — -dainomite06:11, 10 September 2013 (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.
