Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20

1177:.:This is a vexatious nomination. See the discussion on the talk page. Firstly, the introduction to the Cameo-Parkway article presently reads, 'Cameo-Parkway Records was the parent company of Cameo Records and Parkway Records, which were major American Philadelphia-based record labels from 1956 (for Cameo) and 1958 (for Parkway) to 1967.' So that establishes Cameo as a record label. So the main article confirms that there was a 'record label' called Cameo between 1956 and 1967, but because one editor won't accept this we have to go through this farrago of a nomination. The category these belong in is 'Singles by Record LABEL' NOT by company. There is a difference. Finally a 'record label' is a trade mark, device or marketing system used by a record company which was printed on the record, an example is here (others are on the talk page, or you can find your own easy enough). 2725:. We can't expect people to be expert in all subjects. I myself am by no means any expert. To add to that, there are indeed differing opinions outside of Knowledge on the significance of this stuff. A certain aversion would be clear to anyone who investigates the debate surrounding this subject. You do great works here, being very active, and I am sorry that I differ from your interpretation of defining criterias and overcategorisation in this case (by means of subject of bilateral state and diplomatic protocol being on another level than honorary degrees from universities or honorary citizenship of cities, etc.). That said, if you insist on that any of this would be uncivil or sleazy, I am backing off from this nomination and let you have it your way. In that case, please don't let me be an obstancle. 3326:: That is, orders of chivalry and orders of merit conferred by a legitimate fon honorum (a head of a state or of formerly ruling dynasty per general, international protocoal) are deemed to be relevant in categories along with recipients. The premise that one of these entities doesn't satisfy the critera for a state should be cleared before we proceed with deleting categories for this entity. That premise repeatedly asserted in the comments above is new, and ought better be evaluated before proceeding to deletion. Actually the proper location for such a discussion would be 1778:. This is one of those rare situations in which a name is appropriate for the main article but not ideal for the main category. "Miniature wargames" could be a miniature wargame (the intended idea), or it could be a really simple war-related game (it requires miniature time or effort), or it could simply be a travel edition of a war-related game (e.g. Risk with magnetic pieces and an enclosed dice-shaker). I acknowledge that the current title isn't good at all, but we should find a better title to which to move it. Building on Netoholic: maybe "tabletop wargames? 3352:, you are arguing with yourself on an off-topic factor. The obscure technical question of whether or not this lay-religious-order-with-no-territory is considered a "sovereign" entity for some diplomatic purposes due to various machinations which led to its inclusion in a treaty 200 years ago is no part of any of the en.wp guidelines which affect this discussion. It is a factor which some editors have chosen to opine on, but which has np bearing on the outcome. -- 1502: 834:, only half of the Indian states have a sizable Muslim population so it does not make sense to build a whole tree. Most certainly I would expect that Uttar Pradesh can have its own category, since no less than a quarter of the Indian Muslims live in this state. But that is just a matter of creating and populating the category, it is not an inherent part of this discussion. 3297:-- Despite its name, the Sovereign Order of Malta has had no territory since the French conquered Malta on their way to invade Egypt in 1798. This is thus not a national award. I consider that it fails OCAWARD. Listify if necessary. I suspect that approval for new awards categories would be unworkable, because (unlike stub-types) they are ordinary categories. 2743:, I had really hoped that you would strike your personal attacks on other editors, and participate in the discussion by adding something of substance related to the application of categorisation policy. Sadly, you have done neither, and instead you continue on the sleazy theme of suggesting that the issue here is personal aversions. 1696:"Largely" is not "fully", and so there is no need be artificially limited. That category did exist, but was speedied. It can certainly be recreated and any topics/subcategories specifically limited to "miniatures wargames" can go under it. But that doesn't mean supplanting the more general and broad genre of miniatures games. -- 2876:. When we've tried to group the nominations in large blocks, the response we get is that there are differences in the awards that should be evaluated individually so we're left with the long-term effort of nominating them one at a time. Even if we still disagree on this nomination, I hope that background helps! 1201:"Cameo Records was an American record label that flourished in the 1920s." I most misspoke by calling it a record company in my oringal post. It was also a record label. Also, I get you created this category, but can you please stop making person remarks about me and stick to the discussion on the category? 2772:

Sorry if I was being unclear. Deletion has been proposed in reference to policies correctly identifying honorary degrees from universities or honorary citizenship of cities, etc. as redundant. I think such items may be a redundant categorisation, but I don't interpretate this category as meeting that

1254:

Two comments in further of suggestions above. This is far from the only example along these lines and needs sorting out, which I could/should have done many times over the past years, but then so should others, and I did suggest to LongLiveMusic it was a preferred way to take this discussion. I would

2623:, establishment in 1920 seems to make it one of the older explicite orders of merit. I regret if feelings hurt the fact that guidelines may be interpretated in other ways: I'm not sure an official national order of merit - being part of public and diplomatic state protocol - could be comparable with 1255:

have had no problem if somebody had added to the category text, something along the lines of 'Cameo was a label used by the Cameo-Parkway Record company to issue disks between 1956 and 1967 to solve this problem, but to incorrectly recategorize to fit an editor's whim. That's a no-no in any event. --

1239:

I am perfectly fine with as a subcat. I just wanted to make sure there is no confusion since Cameo Records itself is a different label. The reason I posted this is I just worry there will end up being an article created that is a single release under Cameo Records, but they are now being categorized

685:

who was seeming to try to create an article for a mosque for every state and territory in India. There is nothing inherently wrong with this of course but many of these articles have copyright and non-encyclopedic tone problems, not to mention a complete lack of secondary and/or third-party sources.

3584:

PPEMES, as you have been reminded several times before, it is explained very clearly at the top of this nomination. This is the English-language Knowledge, and if your command of English is insufficient to understand that, then I can't help you. If your intent is to troll and disrupt, then you are

1910:

is not "an absolutely massive" category - it only has 72 articles in it which is a nice number (most articles are in specific daughter categories), and one that could probably be reduced by bumping some of them down into more specific categories. So it's fine to have a few games in there that don't

3462:

against non-native English-speaking foreigners? Would that be too much courtesy to ask for? As for the topic discussed, you may be perfectly right and I may well be completely ignorant in interpretating thourougly reasonable policy implications. Thus, I am trying to understand how the policies you

1795:

Sort of what Nyttend said. Wargames form a very recognisable subset of miniature gaming, but miniature gaming itself is a somewhat vague category, which as we've seen doesn't have its own article. Recognisable and distinct makes for a good category, somewhat vague is bad. Looking around we have an

3259:

test as way of categorising individual biographies. Even those orders which have demonstrably wide coverage of the order are rarely defining for the individual recipient. I think that many many more would be deleted if the deletion discussions were not repeatedly disrupted by a small number of

3128:

Seriously, let that sink in: the "universe" of potentially meritorious award categories has been almost entirely exhausted. The likelihood of truly meritorious award cats having been somehow overlooked by this point in time is surely very small indeed. In short, the situation is unlike any major

2804:, I was not aware that you are not a native English speaker. But whatever language you speak, it doesn't alter the fact that you chose to personalise your comments rather than addressing the policy and guideline issues. You made that choice, and that's why I described your comments in that way. 3072:

is not quite defunct, but very much a sideshow. I gave up using it many years ago when assessment of requests fell to such a ridiculously slow place that I had long since forgotten the issues involved by the time any queries were posted; and it's years since anyone objected to my ignoring it.

2781:) of several countries, by consequence. That for me illustrate the issue. Also, I have tried to explain why it wasn't meant as any offense to inquire about less than expert knowledge covering this stuff in general, since it's a rather niche subject. That is, if someone equals a major national 2558:

nomination when I have clearly set out an evidenced, guideline-based reason for deletion. You may reasonably disagree with my analysis, but how dare you try that sleazy scumbag tick of denying that I have made one. That is a very dishonest way to behave, and I hope you will lose no time in

1407:

Oculi, I think that would be a good solution to dab the two to prevent confusion. That way if someone is searching for Cameo of the 50s they are not going to be incorrectly sent to the Cameo of the 20s which is what currently happens. This way viewers know the Cameo of the 50s is part of the

1186:

This give us two options, we rename the holding category as Singles albums etc by Record Company and merge all the subsidiary labels back into the record company, or we accept the category is correct as 'Singles by Record Label' FWIW Whether Cameo has a separate article is irrelevant to this

970:

Islam is so small in these parts of India we do not even have articles on it there. In Goa and Manipur only about 8% of the population is Muslim, in Goa that means about 110,000 people. We would need multiple articles on the subject to justify a seperate category, which we are no where close

1923:

as there's not enough of them to justify creating a specific category for them in normal circumstances (but biologists over-categorise by Knowledge standards). In the case of games the boundaries are far more arbitrary than in biology, so it's aboslutely fine to have 70+ articles in the top

1808:

which is the parent of this one - it's not that full and could do with a bit of a cleanup, there's a number of articles in there which would be better in the board game category for instance. Then clean out non-wargames from this category - to my non-expert mind, Subbuteo is stretching the

3697:

Would you mind having a glimpse now - since deleting the above category in this nomination might implicate the deletion of hundreds of categories that many contributors have spent numerous manhours in building up for the benefit of information access throughout Knowledge?

3382:

That assertion about this particular entity should stand for yourself until you manage to change the contents of the article of the subject. Since you don't seem interested in applying internationally established criterias when interpretating the policies referred (c.f.

3897:. In other words, in Knowledge these articles will already be categorized in multiple more specific articles for their medals. Most of the articles mention the award in passing an an honours section so it doesn't seem defining. All of the winners are already listified 887:

I agree that it is remarkable that Jharkand has so little coverage. There is even only one mosque in the subcategory. But it does not change my opinion. A city of 100,000 people is a small city by Indian standards, states with 100,000 Muslims quite the same.

3322:. If you cannot either, I'm not sure what sense to make out of the comments above based on new premises of non-sovereignty. Again, I would advice to apply caution. We have so far dealt consequentially with these recipients categories as collected in 2785:

with honorary degrees from universities. I'd be delighted if non native-English speaking foreign users could be relieved from being called sleazy scumbugs for objecting in discussions to the best of their limited language ability, if you don't mind.

2890:

OK. Well, I do recognise that this is a quite niche subject. It risk being a typical example of a subject where people with limited background knowledge may walk in and fail to recognise its significance altogether. I'd caution against that.

3399:? I ask, since I thought that the same criterias applied over the board, including in the entity in question here above. If that isn't the case, I would propose to discuss that as a general matter before going about with individual cases. 1043:. The only editor who made a specific !vote opposes any change, and the two other editor who participated did not cast a !vote. The discussion was mostly unconstructive, which may be why after three weeks there were only four participants. 1889:

is a heroes-vs-monsters miniatures game, another style that is not a "wargame". Your plan would result in many games either being wrongly identified as "war"games, or being put into a category so broad as to be devoid of any meaning. --

2524:) are "unnececessary category clutter"? If not, then why should it be in this particular case? This seems to be one of the older such orders of merit. If this one would be deleted, then what else hold raison d'être in the fairly vast 3238:, the categories are scrutinised as nominated at CFD, against the existing guidelines which allows such cats only in exceptional cases. Why this one? Simple: it's one I encountered, which seemed to breach the guidelines. See also 3147:, this discussion is about the deletion of one category. It cannot record a consensus in favour of the idea of pre-approval, let alone implement it. So if you want to pursue your pre-approval idea, please start a discussion at 3428:

writes its own encyclopedia, it can set its own criteria to suits its own purposes ... but Knowledge is not a specialist encyclopedia of chivalric legal fictions, so Knowledge sets its criteria to best serve a non-specialist

682: 1097:

released songs as Cameo, Parkway, and Cameo-Parkway in the 50s and 60s so the WP articles should be linked Cameo-Parkway Records's category instead as Cameo Records and Cameo-Parkway Records are two completely separate

2657: 2635:

that I just added, the implication would be that you would erase container categories for recipients of the highest national dinstinction for more than one country (such as Germany, Italy, Austria). Those that fail

1645:

exists as a subcategory, and I'd suggest just moving whatever is appropriate under that heading. But there are several genres of miniatures games which don't belong in that specific genre category. For example,

1915:, feeling the need to categories "oddities" like Subbuteo in a very specific category when it's absolutely fine to leave it in a more general category. The nearest comparison with mammals would be leaving the 3120:

for these award cats. It's not just because the vast majority are simply too trivial to warrant categories. It's compounded by the interrelated fact that we can state with a high degree of certainty that

1102:

I am thinking the songs listed under this category need to be moved to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records and this category as there are no WP articles with songs released under Cameo Records in the 1920s.

3523:

I see nowhere in the policies referred to that it strictly enforces deletion of categories of orders of merit of states. So what quote in those policies determine that need in your interpretation?

3160:... please remember that this is your unevidenced personal opinion, and that the proposition is unprovable. If you do open that WT:CAT discussion, there will be better ways of making your case. -- 681:- unless other articles can be found to fit into these categories they are redundant and unneeded. It seems on first view that all these categories here and the articles in them where started by 3424:

apply across the board. However, those criteria are based on whether a category would be useful to our readers, rather than on the proceedings of some obscure official body. If and when the

2066: 2061: 2480: 2474: 1093:

was a record company in the 1920s that closed in 1928. The songs listed with this category are incorrectly linking to this page rather than to Category:Cameo-Parkway Records singles.

856:). Jharkhand has nearly 5 million muslims: that's more than the total population of each of the 9 smallest EU member states. It's more than the muslim population of Germany or the UK. 2033:. I AGF that was not an attempt to evade CFD consensus, but that creation clearly undermines the consensus-building here, so I am treating it as if it had been nominated here. -- 648: 42: 37: 1613: 1440: 1133:

I already tried to recatergorize them, but the creator of the category reverted the edits. I also already tried to do speedy deletion and it was denied and I was referred here.

708: 644: 2777:, that is. Then big chunks of categories would have to go by the same criteria. I'm not sure people want to erase categories about recipients of the highest public awards ( 2648:(and other relevant orders of merit) wouldn't hurt. What if we zoom out from this nomination, taking a more critical stance on a broader scale: consider categories such as 1509: 2422:

43 articles do not mention "merito Melitensi" anywhere other than in the category lists. If the category is kept, those articles should be removed from the category per

2408:

It appears to be issued only those who already already highly notable for their achievements. and I have not identified any case in which it appears to meet the tests in

2826:

But the underlying problem is that you seem to assume that being a state order is a relevant test of whether an awards category should exist. That is not the case: see

3860: 3425: 3384: 911:-- Unless there are at least 5 articles, we should allow a category. UP, Kashmir, etc with major Muslim populations can be allowed subcats, but not otherwise. 2568:

was established in 1920, so it's not particularly old. And as I have shown above, the de facto consensus of editors who edit these articles is that it not a

756: 2652:(here we are talking medals, not orders). I assume we can agree on not liking these, but would we want to censor these categories for that sake? What about 2440:

So the clear consensus of the editors who write and maintain these articles is that being a recipients of the Order pro merito Melitensi is non-defining. --

2122: 3396: 3111:

Thanks for your reply. I've never understood why stub cats were supposed to get pre-approval, but never cared enough to pursue it - just not worth my time.

2199: 2157: 2649: 3318:

article. Feel free though if anyone can prove sources that would alter its status of sovereign entity. If not, then feel free to alter what is said in

2114: 2007:, but some uncertainty on how the articles should be recategorised, so I will listify the contents on the talk page, and leave it to the participants ( 1906:

Not at all - there's no need to classify things as wargames that aren't, the whole point is that "wargame" is a pretty easily definable category. But

722:"Islam is the second-largest religion in India, with roughly 15% of the country's population or 201 million people identifying as adherents of Islam" 3493:, I might have gone another round of explanation, but since you have already decided that I am acting in bad faith, and you have accused me of using 2865: 2525: 2030: 2026: 1998: 2721:

Do you mind if I attempt to explain my view? Would such a niche area really be fair to identify as part of common knowledge? Consider for instance

2105: 852:, 9 categories have been nominated. 4 of those nominated relate to states with over 100,000 muslims: Haryana, Jharkhand, Manipur, Meghalaya (from 21: 1809:

conventional definition of miniature gaming to the limit, whilst undoubtedly using "miniature" players; but Subbuteo would sit very naturally in

1120:

If the articles are miscategorized, then recategorize them to the correct category. If that then empties the category it would be eligible for

3327: 3323: 3217: 2632: 1220: 1157: 2583:

the presumption is that award recipients should be the subject of lists rather than of categories, unless there is evidence that the award is

356: 3842: 3597: 3560: 3513: 3448: 3364: 3280: 3172: 3094: 2936: 2842: 2762: 2711: 2653: 2607: 2495: 2452: 2084: 2045: 1461: 1061: 875: 736: 114: 348: 2416: 2354: 760: 2645: 3158:

we can state with a high degree of certainty that virtually every award that actually *does* warrant a category has already been created

1046: 17: 339: 2483:

proposed deleting this along with 204 other award categories. Unsurprisingly for such a large group, it clsed as "no consensus". --

2402: 2152:

with borderline elements of location/trivial intersection that makes it seem like this category won't hold very much in the future.

932:; it's the number of articles not the number of adherents that matter; no prejudice to re-divide when the article numbers so merit. 764: 656: 200:: Created by a promotional account that is not heeding a coi-username warning. Obviously does not understand how categories work. -- 2807:

Substantively, it's a very long stretch to describe an award issued by some private group commemorating a long-defunct state as a "

812:

in Haryana; if one sub-cat and one article makes the category useful, I'm willing for Haryana to be struck from the nomination. –

3890: 2959:

Clicking through these articles, there is passing or no reference and it adds clutter and doesnt' seem defining. Pretty standard

1865:" and think of every possible game variety that you could play sitting at a table. Your suggestion is like wanting to clear out 3260:

editors who appear to have some personal fascination with the award in question and who disregard both the specific guideline

2528:? Not sure, but may this request be less informed on a general societal level than you would expect, or is it simply that of a 768: 2477:

proposed deleting this as one of 5 award categories. I am not clear why they were grouped, but the result was "no consensus".

1641:- There are plenty of tabletop miniatures games which are not "wargames", although, of course, that genre is quite prevalent. 1354: 1310: 385: 3387:), I am trying to understand where you draw the line and if so with what other criterias of your personal preference: Is the 2144:

very, very specific category that holds two articles and one redirect. Just checked and it was only created 10 days ago, but

1873:. Certainly you should be able to accept that all miniature wargames are miniatures games, but not all miniatures games are 1322: 1302: 1301:

It has to so with the possibility that confusion will arise and possibly miscategorisation unless there is some dab added to

1216: 1079: 3475:

as much as that of SMOM does? If not, then what in those policies make the Garter relevent but said categories of SMOM not?

2868:

tree, a handful of mostly retired editors created hundreds (thousands?) of orders/medal categories in rapid succession like

1287:

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but I've fixed it now. Incorrect blue links are a major problem at WP. --

2722: 1388: 393: 3494: 3459: 3331: 2228: 2360: 376: 3464: 3392: 805: 496: 607: 3541:, this is very simple. The guidelines do not even mention "orders of merit of states". That is not part of the test. 2916:

Instead of snidely trying to deride other editors by suggesting that support of deletion of this category is based on

2624: 1836: 1717: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1647: 1642: 1579: 570: 459: 142: 3964: 3946: 3929: 3910: 3847: 3767: 3750: 3725: 3707: 3690: 3672: 3643: 3602: 3579: 3565: 3532: 3518: 3484: 3453: 3408: 3369: 3343: 3306: 3285: 3229: 3191: 3177: 3138: 3099: 3068:, a pre-approval process doesn't exist for any other type of content category. The stub-cat pre-approval process at 3051: 3006: 2989: 2972: 2941: 2900: 2885: 2847: 2795: 2767: 2734: 2716: 2669: 2612: 2541: 2500: 2457: 2343: 2272: 2258: 2244: 2215: 2170: 2089: 2050: 1933: 1897: 1852: 1822: 1787: 1760: 1729: 1703: 1687: 1657: 1633: 1605: 1563: 1466: 1417: 1400: 1366: 1348: 1334: 1296: 1282: 1264: 1249: 1232: 1210: 1196: 1169: 1142: 1128: 1112: 1066: 980: 962: 941: 920: 897: 880: 843: 824: 792:

but I have not nominated Uttar Pradesh; that category does not exist, and I would support you in creating it. It is

780: 741: 695: 671: 533: 422: 293: 226: 209: 190: 119: 3960: 3906: 2968: 2881: 2692:

relate to guidelines being interpreted differently. I complained about your false assertion that my objection was

2576: 2565: 2432: 2398: 1436: 954: 816: 663: 504: 487: 3129:

genre of categories that I can think of, and really should be handled differently than garden variety categories.

615: 598: 3986: 3838: 3815: 3787: 3763: 3593: 3556: 3509: 3444: 3360: 3276: 3168: 3090: 2932: 2838: 2758: 2707: 2603: 2491: 2448: 2324: 2296: 2080: 2041: 1982: 1954: 1886: 1713: 1575: 1533: 1486: 1457: 1339:

These singles were released on the Cameo label, not the Cameo-Parkway label, what renaming are you suggesting? --

1057: 1028: 1000: 976: 871: 732: 691: 561: 450: 274: 246: 222: 110: 78: 3463:

are referring to apply here. I am certainly a non-specialist in this subject. Do I understand it correctly that

578: 467: 311: 133: 3315: 2628: 1912: 937: 652: 524: 413: 150: 1749:

played with miniatures aren't "wargames". Basically, any game played with figures that is not about competing

541: 430: 2920:, please use your claimed superior knowledge to provide actual evidence that this category meets the test of 2435:. That short article has no sections, and "merito Melitensi" is mentioned only in the 9th of 10 paragraphs. 2067:

WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Category:Fictional_California_Institute_of_Technology_students

1314: 3942: 3302: 1907: 1840: 1810: 1805: 1797: 1413: 1245: 1206: 1138: 1108: 916: 801: 752: 2819:" is at best dubious; personally, I'd use stronger words to dismiss such claims about a body which for all 2062:

WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Category:Fictional_California_Institute_of_Technology_people

1800:

article but no corresponding category, which perhaps we should as a master category for this area. We have

302: 180: 3925: 3746: 3721: 3686: 3639: 3187: 3134: 3047: 3002: 2869: 2268: 2240: 1848: 1725: 1683: 1629: 1601: 1380: 893: 839: 99: 1045:

Towards the end, there seemed to be inconclusive signs of some agreement, so maybe further discussion at

3982: 3956: 3902: 3879: 3811: 3783: 2964: 2877: 2693: 2641: 2555: 2529: 2371: 2320: 2292: 1978: 1950: 1529: 1482: 1318: 1094: 1024: 996: 951: 813: 809: 660: 319: 270: 242: 74: 3034:: Rather than cleaning up these messes after the fact, I think we should give serious consideration to 3028:

The discussion above prompts me to reiterate something I posted a couple of days ago in a similar CFD:

2428:

34 articles mentions "merito Melitensi" only in an appendix which lists honours, decorations and awards

1650:

as a genre is not limited to only "wargames", so the current category is the best place to put it. --

173: 3871: 3831: 3759: 3586: 3549: 3502: 3437: 3353: 3269: 3239: 3161: 3106: 3083: 2925: 2831: 2751: 2700: 2596: 2484: 2441: 2375: 2073: 2034: 1450: 1372: 1344: 1292: 1260: 1192: 1050: 972: 947: 864: 725: 687: 636: 218: 205: 103: 3663:? If not, then why not? Trying to understand your interpretation of the policy. Thanks for helping! 3660: 3388: 2873: 2232: 2149: 2004: 1929: 1894: 1818: 1757: 1746: 1700: 1654: 1593: 933: 643:

contain a sub-category for mosques. That sub-category is already within the parent categories: for

3042:. If I'm not mistaken, that's how it works with stub categories, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. 3938: 3545: 3498: 3468: 3433: 3298: 3265: 3256: 3148: 2921: 2644:

or else be dropped from categorisation. On a side note, should you fancy, indeed a complementary

2584: 2569: 2409: 2145: 1409: 1241: 1202: 1134: 1104: 929: 912: 704: 3921: 3183: 3144: 3130: 3065: 3043: 2998: 3981:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3898: 3894: 3875: 3782:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3742: 3717: 3713: 3682: 3654: 3635: 3501:

or my analysis at the top of this discussion, and I have wasted enough time on you already. --

3472: 3261: 2960: 2827: 2592: 2580: 2291:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2264: 2254: 2236: 2211: 2161: 2018: 2010: 1949:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1916: 1866: 1844: 1783: 1721: 1679: 1625: 1597: 1481:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

995:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

889: 849: 835: 241:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3937:

This is a NN award. Is it in fact awarded by IAAF or by WP? If the latter delete and salt.

3810:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2319:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1977:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1528:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1178: 1023:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

269:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3703: 3668: 3631: 3575: 3528: 3480: 3404: 3339: 3225: 3074: 3069: 2896: 2791: 2730: 2665: 2637: 2591:

award is not defining; and I am reckon that if scrutinised, amny other categories will fail

2537: 2423: 1920: 1870: 1558: 1125: 2997:

per incisive remarks of the nominator. Too many articles are drowning in category clutter.

2913:

trouble, I suggest that you promptly strike that comment along with your ad hominems above.

863:

It seems perverse to suggest that this will generate too little coverage for a category. --

3886: 3570:

That's correct. I don't understand how that policy apply here. Would you mind explaining?

2985: 2513: 1396: 1362: 1340: 1330: 1288: 1278: 1256: 1228: 1188: 1165: 776: 201: 2750:". It needs the application of policies and guidelines, and evidence to back that up. -- 946:

Thanking those who have supported the nomination. I have clarified that this should be a

3082:

So I think we have little choice other than to continue to assess them post-creation. --

2773:

redundance criteria by means of a subject of bilateral state and diplomatic protocol: a

3220:(state issued or dynastic) are unmotivated? If not, then why is this one specifically? 2782: 2620: 2521: 2387: 2383: 2190: 1925: 1891: 1814: 1754: 1753:(but rather small party or individual skirmishes) would not be served by this move. -- 1697: 1651: 1619: 1270: 853: 804:; I have looked, and cannot add any new sub-categories from there. All I could find in 717: 3123:

virtually every award that actually *does* warrant a category has already been created

3893:" and be retired for 10 years in order to be inducted according to the main article, 2980:- these unnecessary categories capturing trivia do need to be picked off one by one. 2910: 2683:

I regret if feelings hurt the fact that guidelines may be interpretated in other ways

1862: 1858: 1801: 1384: 1376: 1306: 1090: 95: 1510:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 8#Category:CEOs of General Electric

3319: 2379: 2250: 2207: 2184: 2153: 2014: 1779: 1121: 3861:

Category:International Association of Athletics Federations Hall of Fame inductees

3797:

Category:International Association of Athletics Federations Hall of Fame inductees

2554:, kindly learn some basic semblance of basic civility, and do not accuse me of a 2249:

Being associated with a scientific institution does not imply being a scientist.

3699: 3664: 3571: 3538: 3524: 3490: 3476: 3417: 3400: 3349: 3335: 3235: 3221: 2906: 2892: 2801: 2787: 2778: 2774: 2740: 2726: 2678: 2661: 2551: 2533: 2517: 2391: 1549: 950:

unless and until more content is available to make the categories worthwhile. –

3391:

not important enough to keep recipients categories? Not even perhaps it's own

2981: 2340: 1738: 1392: 1358: 1326: 1274: 1224: 1161: 787: 772: 290: 1179:

Image of Charlies Grace's Butterfly single showing the Cameo logo of the time

289:. Recreation is permitted when coverage of this topic is more comprehensive. 1861:

are an absolutely massive classification (just look at what's listed under "

3804: