Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28

28 August 2023

Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui

Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Original CfD discussion was in 2016, on a spurious basis, in part because categories were poorly populated at the time (primarily with foreign dignitaries who already had pages). This led to conclusions that it was "automatically given to elected officials, are souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, or are too common to be defining" and that the recipients were all listed on the award's existing article.

The Order of Tahiti Nui is the primary national award of French Polynesia. Its recipients receive significant media coverage for having received the award. Its equivalent to the French Ordre national du Mérite or the New Zealand Order of Merit, and its appropriate for it to have similar categories (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite). Like the French equivalent, it is a defining characteristic of its recipients. Contra the original CfD, it is not "automatically given to elected officials, [a] souvenirs for visiting foreign officials, [or] too common to be defining". A look at a list of recipients shows it to be an actual national award, given to French Polynesians who have distinguished themselves to various levels (plus the usual sucking up to foreign dignitaries that goes with all awards of this nature e.g. Prince Phillip's Order of Australia). A look at that list also makes it clear that the assumptions underlying the original CfD were false.

I recreated the category and its subcategories (Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎, Category:Commanders of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎, Category:Officers of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎‎, Category:Knights of the Order of Tahiti Nui‎) a while ago, when building articles for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/French Polynesia work group. Recipients seemed like good targets for biographies, and like the NZOM, its a good first cut for notability. Since then I've added quite a number of people to these categories - at least 26 from my watchlist, plus other existing articles I had not watchlisted (examples: Maco Tevane, Jean-Marius Raapoto, John Mairai, Lucien Li, Michel Charleux, Matahi Brothers, Suzanne Chanteau, John Martin (Soldier), Andréa de Balmann, Raymond Bagnis). That work was undone by a bot-run based on a 7-year-old CfD today. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse - Orders of chivalry or orders of merit are not defining characteristics. BrownHairedGirl closed the CFD discussion, and BrownHairedGirl was almost always right on the technical details, in particular about categories, and she was right that this order is not defining. She was the expert on a feature that more editors thought that they understood than actually understood, and she had no patience with editors who didn't try to understand guidelines that were not easily understood. She insulted editors who were wrong, but if BHG insulted someone, they were probably wrong; they just deserved to be treated with respect. BrownHairedGirl was almost always right about technical matters. Follow the advice given in the Overcategorization guideline and create lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Clearly that is not the consensus with regard to the Ordre national du Mérite, Ordre des Palmes académiques, Order of Agricultural Merit, NZOM, or a bunch of British awards (down to the humble Queen's Service Medal or British Empire Medal). So what's different about this one? -- IdiotSavant (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Comments/Questions for User:IdiotSavant:

  • • See Other Stuff Exists.
    • Has there been a Category Discussion that has found that these categories should exist, or are you simply stating that they exist? (I know that I haven't looked them up.)
    • If the latter, you or anyone else can nominate them for deletion as non-defining categories.
    • If the former, that is, if the categories have been nominated and kept, the conflict might be a basis for reviewing the non-defining category guideline. It appear that more editors don't understand it than do understand it, which may mean that it is too confusing.
    • BrownHairedGirl did understand it. She was almost always right about categories, and was often intolerant of editors who didn't understand. She was banned not for being wrong about categories but for attacking other editors when she was right about categories.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• • • The only two categories related to those awards that have been directly discussed at CFD (that I can find) are Category:Recipients of the Ordre des Palmes Académiques and Category:Recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite, both at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Categories of recipients of orders of merit. Category:New Zealand Order of Merit and its subcategories were discussed tangentially at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Category:Recipients of a New Zealand Knighthood, which deleted another category for being redundant to them. 2013 was of course a long time ago, but then, the 2016 discussion used as a basis for the current G4s is also well beyond what drv tends to endorse in any other namespace. —Cryptic 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I do wish there were some clearly-defined standard as to when G4 applies to old discussions, but as opposed to in mainspace where article subjects can easily become more notable with the passage of time categories really don't become any more defining with the passage of time so there's no inherent reason there should be an age limit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• For context, I speedy deleted this per a request at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Process for speedily deleting recreated categories, and then told the bot that does CfD implementation to empty it with a reference to the original CfD, and IdiotSavant made no attempt to discuss this with me. Not that it would have mattered, since I would have felt duty-bound by the past decision and told them to go to DRV. I don't actually have an opinion on the underlying dispute over whether the category should be recreated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and note I'm making no decisions on the merits here - this is an old category which was originally deleted with limited discussion, as is the case with CfD, and then re-deleted on an administrative technicality. Since this was functionally a contested speedy deletion - does G4 apply because any re-created category would be fundamentally the same as any previous deleted category? - it seems like the "proper" thing to do would be to undelete, and then anyone can take it to CfD for a new discussion, but perhaps I missed the correct rule on category re-creation... SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)