< January 23 January 25 >

January 24

Category:Fictional Distinguished Service Cross recipients

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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:SMALLCAT
Usually when a mediocre writer wants to let you know someone is a war hero, they mention in passing that they won the Medal of Honor when you meet them so Category:Fictional Medal of Honor recipients is well populated. In contrast, it's rare to claim characters won the second highest U.S. military award. The only article in the category is Big Boss, a character from the Metal Gear video games, and that article makes no mention of the award so it must not be too defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Smijes08 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. – RevelationDirect (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2016 (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:Associations

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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The headnote for the category says "This category is for associations in an informal sense, in that any non-profit group which has not incorporated may be thought of as an association." Many of the subcategories do not fit that definition at all. In particular the only entry in most of the geographical subcategories relate to professional associations, which are far from informal, and often statutory. But the central concept is a complete overlap with Category:Clubs and societies, of which it is a subcategory. It has no defining feature except the use of the word "Association" in the title. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Rathfelder (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know why almost all of these categories contain only the professional associations subcategory? It's because you almost systematically emptied out the Category:Associations tree.
    Keep per the arguments given by Oculi, Dimadick and Hmains. --PanchoS (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2016 (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.

Tall people

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: delete and salt both. Closing this promptly per WP:IAR because "tall people" is one of the archetypal WP:SUBJECTIVECATs which has been specifically deprecated since the overcategorization guideline was created in 2006. There is no point in wasting editors time with further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: "Adjectives which imply a subjective or inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category."—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2016 (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:Immigration political advocacy groups in Germany

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: upmerge to 3 parent categories, without prejudice to creating a new category for Europe if similar groups exist in other European countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Immigration political advocacy groups in Germany
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT Rathfelder (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: Could you please keep category discussions in a consistent format, so that not two discussions are mingled in one section? I've reformatted it now already. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I find this procedure very difficult to use. I wasn't aware that I had mixed up two discussions. I was trying to follow the instructions.Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (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.

People associated with cathedrals

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 Ely, Southwark & Worcester; delete with selective merge/purge of the contents of them all. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or rename per WP:OCASSOC. This is a follow-up on this discussion which has been withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid question. Based on the prior discussion, only the well-defined subcategories were being kept not the rag tag loose articles. (@Marcocapelle: Or did I misinterpret that?) RevelationDirect (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but people with a too vague connection will be purged anyway, now or some time later. For now, I focused the nomination on actions for whole categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind the Associated With categories as much if they are grouping well-defined subcategories, i.e. they are container categories, although I still don't favor them. Many--but not all--of the articles that are "loose" under the Category:People by university or college in England either belong in a subcategory or only arguable defined by the university. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, these categories also are grouping well-defined subcategories. At the previous discussion I suggested containerising these ones. So I don't understand why you don't mind the university assoc cats, but do mind these ine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For both the cathedral and university examples, I favor deletion over keeping. If kept though, I favor containerizing. Sorry I wasn't clear. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note you didn't respond to my main point. The burials-at category is currently in the people-from category so an upmerge wouldn't make that categorization any worse. Perhaps Marcocapelle would consider adding a note to the nomination saying not to upmerge the burials-at categories to the people-from categories. DexDor (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a fair point that burials at-categories shouldn't be merged to people-from categories. If this becomes too complex for the closer, I'll just delist the burials categories manually after the closing of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A straight delete (rather than the proposed merge) would, for example, remove Category:Burials at Wells Cathedral from Category:Wells Cathedral. Is that what you intend? DexDor (talk)
It seems a somewhat fallacious argument, because someone who had a very brief connection (a visit) would not qualify in any meaningful sense as 'being associated'. Cathedral bishops, canons, choirmasters, organists, even the sexton or groundsman (assuming they met WP:GNG) of the cathedral would definitely be associated in a major way. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, I think the latter is the best solution of all. So for each of them upmerge the Bishops, Burials and Deans subcategories to the Cathedral parent category; upmerge the Bishops and Deans subcategories to the "People from" parent category; but delete the single articles from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2016 (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:Cold War leaders

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: delete. MER-C 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just to clarify up front, this is not a total deletion argument, but rather a purge issue. I can see the value of this category for certain people — however, as actually constituted it's taken a sharp left turn toward inclusion of anybody at all who happened to serve as a national head of state or government in any country at all during that particular time period, regardless of whether the Cold War had anything to do with their political context or not. I absolutely grant that this belongs on Presidents of the United States and the Soviet Union and West and East Germany — but there are many people in here whose inclusion is actually dubious at best: Presidents of Japan, Prime Ministers of Canada, Presidents of Rhodesia, and many other people for whom the category declaration itself is the only appearance of the words "Cold War" anywhere in the entire article. Again, I'm not proposing that the entire category be deleted outright — but it needs to be purged of anybody whose article doesn't actually contain any content that makes it explicitly clear how the person's leadership had anything to do with the Cold War besides a coincidence of timing. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just wanted to add a clarification, since so far this has attracted delete votes even though I only proposed a content purge: I don't actually have any objection to total deletion, if that's where consensus lands — I actually agree that there's a legitimate case to be made for outright deletion, it just wasn't the argument that I was rhetorically prepared to formulate in the moment. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I like the fact that you didn't immediately say "delete", and instead looked for a way to make the categ viable. However, I am not persuaded that there is any viable halfway house. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of material is much better handled as a list, or as an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 24 January 2016 (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.
More