Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Category:United Kingdom intelligence agencies[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy
  • BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has made this objection many times before for example here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_7#Category:Years_in_British_politics and goes against common practice on Wikipedia. Tim! (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed common practice, but it remains mistaken. It introduces ambiguity (and in some cases, POV) quite unnecessarily, because there is a neutral and unambiguous alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite wrong to describe the use of the word British as mistaken when the choice is made by consensus. Tim! (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not truth; it is an agreement amongst editors. Consensus can change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as well as the nominators rationale, the parent category is "...by country" not "...by region" so the small possibility of assuming the landmass rather than the nation is well within acceptable limits as far as I can see. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is only one thing capable of having intelligence agencies that can be described as "British" and that is the UK. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Only nations have inteelignece agncies. There can thus be no ambiguity. I recall hearing of people from Northern Ireland (probably Unionists) rejoicing in being British, whle visiting the Republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Identification as British (or otherwise) denotes the major political division in Northern Ireland. Some ppl there rejoice in the label, but others despise it. Using the terminology of one side is non-neutral. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support British is the accepted term for things connected with the United Kingdom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The adjective associated with the United Kingdom (which isn't an adjective) is "British". -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Fayenatic. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2012 (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:Films that use the 'wilhelm scream'[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Use of a particular sound effect is not a defining characteristic of a film. Film articles are already so heavily categorized that navigation is difficult. LeSnail (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose This is a notable sound effect, and worth categorizing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the scream itself is notable, it's not a defining characteristic of any of the films in the category. For example: "Do you want to watch Titanic?" - "The film with the wilhelm scream?!" Next. Lugnuts And the horse 08:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete First of all, of late the defining characteristic has become more and more not using it. It's plainly not defining, and I note that sourcing this is largely impossible. Mangoe (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I understand about this now. I'll let you folks go ahead and delete the unimportant category. (WikiFanCreator2010 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per everyone voted "Delete". Steam5 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but perhaps listify -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer category, even though the performer is a mere sound effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is almost as bad as categorizing together bands that have an umlat in their name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2012 (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.

Medal for Impeccable Service[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a long service and good conduct medal awarded to all servicemen who had been in for a set time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see what use this category is? Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- In UK, there were stars awarded in WWII for service in the forces generally or service in a particular theatre. WE do not categorise for them, though we have an article on the Africa Star, but not even a list of holders. let alone a category. This is somewhat equivalent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2012 (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.

Soviet campaign medals[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Campaign medals, not awarded for any special merit. We don't usually have categories for the recipients of such medals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete membership for these goes in the millions, definitely not a criterion for individual notability. We might as well have the medals for the 10th, 20th etc jubilees of the Red Army or the decennial anniversaries of the Great Patriotic War. Constantine ✍ 10:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure we will if these categories are allowed to proliferate! Which is one reason I'm trying to nip it in the bud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. I would also add that although mmillions may have received the medal, relative few would have a WP bio as being notable. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Participation in a military campaign may be a defining characteristic, although the convention is categorise by campaign or war rather than by individual. Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining charcateristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- mere campaign metals, not for bravery or any particualrly distinguished performance. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all we do not categorize people for getting campaign medals. These are almost as bad as performer by performance categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, this is out of control. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2012 (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.

Service medals[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A ubiquitous service medal issued to over 5 million people. Both categories actually apparently refer to the same medal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a service badge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a service badge awarded for completion of two patrols. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a service medal. Doesn't indicate any specific merit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another service medal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just another service medal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 6 of these service medal categories. they are issued to so many people that receipt of one is not a defining characteristic. It will usually be too trivial to even mention in a biographical article.
    Note that since the 6 categories above have been identified by the nominator as raising similar issues, I have grouped them together to save editors from having to paste the same comment 6 times. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator. Constantine ✍ 10:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With all do respect that is a really terrible idea. It would be horribly difficult to create project categories to track all of these and completely redo the categorization of these articles just because a couple individuals that do not use it Don't like it. Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, moving the categories to talk pages is fairly simple job using AWB with bot permissions. Ask at WP:BOTREQ, and there are lots of bot-owners who can help.
    You mention WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please explain which parts of it you think apply here, and in particular why my arguments based on WP:CAT#Overview and WP:OC#AWARD are deprecated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    There is no need to turn this into a long and complicated debate. I voiced my disapproval and that's that. If the end result is the categories get deleted then so be it. Since I am the only person to oppose at this point, with the size of Milhist, maybe I am the only one who was using them anyway. It seems you all are much more interested in deleting them than I am about fighting to keep them. I have had these debates before and it almost always goes to the Admin. Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do hope that the arguments will be weighed on their merits, and not on the basis of who makes them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are all too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all service medals are handed out too often to be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete service medals but the Medal for Battle Merit/Medal for Combat Service appears to be more than just something doled out with the rations, albeit 5m of them
    • Really? Just looks like something given to all combat veterans as far as I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2012 (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.

Service tabs[edit]

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 as wildly WP:OC. The Bushranger One ping only 19:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a qualification badge awarded to those who pass certain criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a qualification badge awarded after meeting certain criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both These are qualification tabs, not actual awards. Intothatdarkness 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2012 (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 a posthumous promotion[edit]

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. There absolutely should be an article on this as PKI suggests, but a list of everyone who received one - even one of everyone with a bluelink who received one - would be truly massive. The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see no reason why this should be especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK then on the US category, but this does not necessarily carry over to the more generic one. In Greece, for instance, it is a rather rare honour recognizing exceptional valour. Constantine ✍ 10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I don't agree. This is another one of those things that makes it a lot easier to identify them. Especially when using AWB to edit a group of articles related to a certain topic. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages. If the categs were on talk pages, they would still facilitate the AWB runs which Kuioko wants to do.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- WE do not seem to have a main article, setting out the circumstances in which a promotion is given posthumously and what its consequences are. For example is it a means of increasing a widlow's pension? AS there is no main article, perhaps we should listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both we generally try to avoid large range granted awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2012 (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 Prisoner of War Medal[edit]

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: Merge to Category:American prisoners of war. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a service medal awarded to people already in Category:American prisoners of war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (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 Expert Infantryman Badge[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a qualification badge awarded to anyone who satisfies certain criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a record of service, rather than an honour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. Cgingold (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I assume this is too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's another qualification tab, not an award. Intothatdarkness 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete qualification badge. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2012 (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.

Recipients of Combat Action awards[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically just awarded for being in combat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a record of service in battle, rather than an honour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Gold, BHG and Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per BrownHairedGirl et al. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (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.

Wound badges[edit]

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: no consensus. I'm particularly loath to delete a category with almost 1,800 members on a split decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's just a wound badge awarded to all servicemen who have been wounded. Why would we classify people for being wounded? Killed, maybe, but wounded, no. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just a wound badge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. It is the nature of war that many soldiers are wounded. Not nice for those concerned, but not a defining characteristic. If we want to categorise soldiers by whether they are wounded, we should categorise on this characteristic, rather than by whether or not their service issued a badge to denote that fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am doubtful of the brisk dismissal of being wounded as not defining. I would remind editors that in modern wars most soldiers do not serve in combat units, and many who do never reach the front. Anyone who knows much of Tolkien's life knows that his time in the trenches in World War I is important to understanding his fiction. The Purple Heart is a relatively common award to American soldiers, but it nonetheless draws a definitive line across the experience of military men. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should point out that many armies do not even issue wound badges. Why should the USA and France be special cases just because they do? If we introduce a major categorisation scheme for all soldiers wounded in war all over the world, well...I would see that as fairly pointless, but at least it wouldn't focus exclusively on a couple of countries. As it is, we don't. I'm not really sure what your point is about combat - wound badges don't categorise soldiers who've served in combat, but only those who were wounded. Nor are soldiers who served in combat units more significant than those who did not (a tiresome claim at the best of times) - I would remind you that both rightly receive the same campaign medals. Strange that you should mention Tolkien, whose article is completely irrelevant as there is (and should be) no category for British personnel who were either wounded or served in combat (I'm not suggesting we should delete Category:Lancashire Fusiliers officers or Category:British Army personnel of World War I, which do appear on his article, or similar categories for other countries). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The United States does not issue a would badge, the Purple Heart is a decoration.[1] EricSerge (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It makes no difference what you call it. It's still a wound badge. It's not awarded for gallantry or achievement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I would say these awards are specific to certain countries. In the British Commonwealth, Wound stripes were awarded but are rarely recorded anywhere. The only equivalent I can see is the Silver War Badge which was awarded in vast numbers. I use this only as an example of the limited nations that 'award' wounds. I have perhaps some sympathy to the idea of the Purple Heart as being a 'special case' given it may well be the most well known US decoration so could be persuaded but it is awarded in huge numbers and not always as seemed to be claimed above for wounds from the enemy Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending more info as per Cgingold Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although I have supported deletion of all of the other minor military award categories that User:Necrothesp has listed here, in this particular case I have serious reservations. While it's true that a great many Purple Hearts have been awarded, it has been my experience over the years that most veterans feel that the Purple Heart is of greater importance than almost any other award they may have received. I'm pretty sure other knowledgeable editors can attest to that - and perhaps somebody can point us to a published source that would bear this out. I do not know why it should be that US veterans would feel so strongly about a type of award that is apparently not deemed terribly important in other countries. Nonetheless, the fact that it may be exceptional in that regard is not in itself a valid argument for deletion. Cgingold (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was aware when I nominated it that deletion of this category would be controversial. However, looking at it from a purely objective point of view I can really see no particular reason why receipt of the Purple Heart should be any more significant as a categorisation than any other minor award. At the end of the day, it is awarded not for anything that an individual has done, but for something that has happened to him. The individual who has been seriously wounded charging bravely at an enemy machine gun nest receives the same award as the individual who has been shot in the little finger while fetching the rations. It's the true decoration that the former gets for his courage that should be categorised, not the medal awarded to every Tom, Dick or Harry who's been wounded. That's not in any way denigrating those who have been wounded serving their country, but simply stating an objective fact. Let's remove the emotional reasons for keeping this category and see what we've got left and whether we genuinely think it would be kept if it did not have such emotional baggage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Necrothesp's comment above, but want to add a bit.
    I don't see a source for Cgingold's comment about the emotional significance to soldiers of their Purple Hearts, but even if it can be reliably sourced, it is not a relevant factor. Categories are supposed to be based on defining characteristics, not on their emotional attachments to small items of property. I'm sure that the subject of nearly every biographical article on Wikipedia owns items of deep personal significance, whether that's a ring or an old motorcycle, a favourite dress or a perfect forest axe. Categorising people on the basis of those sentimental attachments is a recipe for madness; it would spawn a mountain of trivial categories.
    However, some things achieve greater cultural significance that their intrinsic importance. So I could be persuaded to reconsider my support for deletion if there was evidence in RSs that receipt of one of these widely-issued medals is commonly regarded as a defining characteristic. Even in that case though, I'd have to weigh any such significance against the problems set out in Purple Heart of the lack of documentation of many awards of the medal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How defining is any medal? One could take an extreme approach and say that we'll only categorize by medal where we would write an article on the sole basis of having been awarded that medal, so that for instance for US military we would probably only categorize for the Medal of Honor. And I wouldn't necessarily object to that degree of selectivity, but it seems to me that we need to address what "defning" means in this context as one single, unified discussion rather than spread out over fifteen or more category discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have a consensus approach to this at WP:DEFINING. I suggest that any attempt to address the issue here should start by applying the principles set out there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    I don't think that gets us to getting rid of this category. A sample of five or six members of the category discloses that biographies of most of them would mention the award as a matter of course; the exceptions tended to be MoH winners. There are a couple where I could see promoting mention to the lede, and given the proliferation of categories on most articles, I have to believe that this test isn't generally taken seriously, and thus doesn't reflect actual consensus. The driving force towards deletion seems to be a personal sense that this award ought to be played down as unimportant, and not out of our actual definition of what is defining. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe, we seek WP:CONSENSUS by discussing disagreements, including discussing disagreements about how to apply guidelines. So please assume that those who you disagree with are making a good faith effort to apply those guidelines, rather than rushing without evidence to a suggestion that that they are pushing a POV and trying to downplay things.
    My understanding of WP:DEFINING is that the lede test is a negative one: if it don't belong in the lede, it's probably not defining. You appear to be saying that it's defining if it belongs in the lede, which is not what's written.
    The guideline says that a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. I tried applying that test to the last 6 articles under "L":
    1. Robert W. Lyon no refs, nothing to assess
    2. Jessica Lynch, PH not mentioned in any of the substantial articles I checked: USNews article, or the USAtoday article, the Daily Mail article, the CNN report from 2007, or the TIME mag proifile
    3. Clancy Lyall not mentioned in the County Times obituary or the SoMD News obit
    4. William F. Lyell no substantial coverage linked
    5. James Edward Lykins mentioned in Wvgazette article, which is the only sunstantial RS linked
    6. Grayston Lynch only 1 linked RS Miami Herland doesn't mention PH
    From that sample, I think that the PH is a defining characteristic only of James Edward Lykins, and that appears to because he made artwork about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In terms of significance, the award appears to be just below the Bronze Star in the hierarchy of Federal awards so I'm unclear how the award is viewed in the states. It may be that US for cultural reasons regard this badge as akin to a gallantry award and hence notable. it certainly has origins in a meritorious award. I would look for more input before casting a vote Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems consensus will roll to delete, but during WW2 and Vietnam (at least) the PH was viewed as being one of the few decorations that was relatively immune from political influence. At one time the CIB was also seen that way. It wasn't so much based on where they were in the merit order, but how they were earned that gave them a different weight in the eyes of combatants. Intothatdarkness 16:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the Purple Heart is not actually earned. It's given out as a matter of course for something that has happened to an individual beyond their control. An individual who has spent three days in a combat zone and been wounded is certainly not more significant or worthy than an individual who has spent six months in a combat zone and been lucky enough to escape injury, yet the former has a medal and the latter doesn't. Not because he's done anything heroic but simply because he's been unlucky. That's why it's not particularly defining, why many armies do not give out wound medals, and why death or injury is not a qualifying criterion for an article on Wikipedia. It's the circumstances in which they were killed or wounded that are significant (and the possible gallantry decoration they received for those circumstances), not the medal they received simply for being killed or wounded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a lot of solddiers' stories, at least, tell tales of people reciving Purple Hearts because they jumped at incoming artillery and cut their hand on a C-ration can. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- According to the article, there have eben seomthing like 1.5M awards. We have 1790 articles in the category, which is too many to make a worthwhile category. It might be better if split by war, but I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BrownHairedGirl. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being wounded in combat is not defining. Tragic and worthy of recognition, yes, but categorisation? No. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I could usually care less about categories and wholeheartedly agree with the deletion of the cats for the "been there, done that medals." I disagree with the deletion of this category since the Purple Heart is a decoration, not a campaign or service medal. It falls in the order of precedence between the Bronze Star Medal (Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal) and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (Category:Recipients of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal). I am no expert on Wikipedia law, but if we categorize the decorations above and below the Purple Heart why single out the Purple Heart? I understand that not all countries present a badge for wounds, let alone a decoration, but the US does. As high up as the Purple Heart is in the order of wear it makes sense to retain the category. Otherwise delete them all. EricSerge (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we categorise awards below the Purple Heart in the order or precedence? Simply because they're awarded for something the individual has actually done. The order of wear is irrelevant. It's down to history rather than level of achievement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally do not categorize by awards. Military badges that require little action on the part of the recipient seem especially ill suited to this. To recieve these awards people have to be wounded in combat, but that says little about what they actually do. If they go on to become a high ranking general, early wounding in combat will not be a central part of their biography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2012 (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 Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait)[edit]

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. Due to the scope and subject of this medal, though, this might be a candidate for listification. Accordingly, I have taken a screenshot of its contents if anyone wishes to do that; it can be seen here. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Campaign medal. Many thousands issued. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets not categorise by commonly issued campaign medal Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gold and Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- CAmpaign medals are too common to make useful categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is essentially a common campaign medal. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2012 (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.

French campaign medals[edit]

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 all. No individual ones have been identified for retention. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Campaign and service medals. In some cases, millions have been issued. In all cases it's thousands. We don't usually have categories for the recipients of such medals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lets not categorise by medal except where it is a significant award Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't agree. These categories aren't saying that the individual rates an articles because they have the medal, just that they have it. As someone who works with Military biographies quite a bit I find it often helpful to have a category for the particular medal to help identify who has what. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kumioko's rationale runs counter to WP:CAT#Overview, which says that categories are for "essential - defining - characteristics of a topic". If an editor wants to track the spread of a non-defining characteristic, that should be achieved through project maintenance categories, and I would not object to these categories being repurposed as project categories and moved to talk pages.
    These categories also contravene WP:OC#AWARD, which gives examples of deleted categories for awards with a much smaller distribution than these. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most or all - I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of French military honors to be absolutely certain about all of these. If one or two of these are, in fact, truly major awards, I hope User:Kumioko will be good enough to identify them as such.
As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a grossly excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. My thanks to User:Necrothesp for bringing these to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or most -- Any that are decorations for bravery or exceptional service should be kept, but most sound like campaign medals. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that are not for bravery or exceptional/meritorious service Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I can see, none of these medals are awarded for bravery or exceptional or meritorious service. Long service, maybe, but that's not a reason for retention. The wording in some of the articles is ambiguous, but stripped down, none of these appear to be awarded for anything other than serving. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2012 (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 Jubilee Medal "50 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945"[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very common. Awarded to all surviving veterans of the Second World War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Kernel Saunters. Far too widely issued to be a defining characteristic of its recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and my comment on Soviet campaign medals above. Constantine ✍ 10:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DJ. Steam5 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- presumably effectively a campaign medal + 50 years survival: too common. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2012 (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 Malta George Cross Fiftieth Anniversary Medal[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Commemorative medal, awarded to anyone serving in Malta during the siege. We don't generally have categories for recipients of campaign or commemorative medals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we want to categorise soldiers by which battle they fought in, then let's do so directly rather than through this indirect mechanism. (I would oppose any such categorisation, because most wars involve many battles, and it would be a recipe for category clutter. That's why we currently categorise soldiers by war rather than by battle). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BGH. - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. Cgingold (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gold. Steam5 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is effectively a campaqign medal for speciified survice during the siege of Malta. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete commemorative Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2012 (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 King George V Silver Jubilee Medal[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very common commemorative medal. Over 85,000 awarded. We don't normally have categories for commemorative or campaign medals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable award Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Kernel Saunters. Far too widely issued to be a defining characteristic of its recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. Steam5 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. Cgingold (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete commemorative Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2012 (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 King George VI Coronation Medal[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very common commemorative medal. Over 90,000 awarded. We don't normally have categories for commemorative or campaign medals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This medal is not notable, it's marginal even for inclusion in the main article. A total of 90,279 were issued! Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Kernel Saunters. Far too widely issued to be a defining characteristic of its recipients. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As is the case throughout our awards categories, only the truly major military awards should have categories. These have really gotten out of hand, with many bio articles having a really excessive number of these categories cluttering up the category space at the bottom of the page. Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cgingold and Brownhairedgirl. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG, Gold and Sasso. Steam5 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete commemorative
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:Dundurn Books[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the publishing house is "Dundurn Group", and this category is books published by the Dundurn Group, thus the word "books" should not be capitalized. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator to reflect the name of the publishing house.
    However, the whole of Category:Books by publisher needs review, and at this point I think it should be deleted. There is no reason to single out this category for deletion, but the concept of this category is broken. Books are frequently published under different imprints in different countries, with paperback and hardback editions often being published separately ... and later editions may be issued by yet another publisher. This a recipe for massive category clutter, and I am minded to open a big group nomination to get rid of the lot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:40, 20 September 2012 (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:People from Athabasca County, Alberta[edit]

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: reverse merge from Category:People from Athabasca County. The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:People from Athabasca County already exists, and there is no other Athabasca County. 117Avenue (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, can I blame this on a lack of sleep? I usually support categories matching article names. Someday Alberta's municipal districts articles will be assessed, and moved, according to WP:CANSTYLE, but not today. 117Avenue (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2012 (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:Female Australian Swimmer of the Year[edit]

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: merge to Category:Australian Swimmers of the Year.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: or delete. Should be plural, and is possibly redundant to Category:Australian Swimmers of the Year Courcelles 00:41, 20 September 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_20&oldid=1079914917"