" 

 Where does common sense tell you that original research is being involved when if there is a category for something such as an award that has been given out over time and someone has vreated such an article of section for that award yet no where except by going into the article is there any indication of what years span there is covered by that article or section. That is not original research. That is ""X"" article or section has ""X"" information. What point is there to making two moves when one will do? When I am searching out information the last thing I want to have to do is look at EVERYTHING to find out just where I need to look when all it takes is a competent compiler to indicate just what is in the article/section. You do not create an article on ""Mental capability"" leaving it to the reader to have to go to EVERY article/section on MENTAL CAPABILITY when if there is a ""yours"" article, a ""his"" article or a ""mine"" article. It does not matter when an award was started or when it was discontinued. All that matters is a centralized source of information or routing through that article.  "