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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One album and a discography (which can be placed in the albums category) is not enough to warrant this category. WP:OC#Eponymous --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No difference. They both should be deleted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too little content to justify category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The albums category serves its function and no other related articles exist to warrant this level of categorization. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite.We expect a band to be involved in albums. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2013 (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.
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, but without prejudice to a fresh nomination to consider deletion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable genre; and suffers the usual failings of "about" categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Useful category, but poorly named. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2013 (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.
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. (I would have said "merge", but the only contents is Plot device, and we probably don't want that article merged to Category:Films by topic.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the film… Back to the Future, for instance, uses it as a topic, but (Doctor Who, as a television example, because my mind is currently blank) uses it as a plot device. drewmunntalk 12:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plot devices are not notable and should not be categorized by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Plot devices are defining characteristics for any film, but I agree that the concepts of the two categories overlap. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since, at present, the category contains only one article anyway. SuperMarioMan 02:04, 8 September 2013 (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:Groups that resisted the Greek military junta of 1967–74[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.
Nominator's rationale: Propose moving to a more inclusive name: organized political groups were few, but, especially within Greece, there were many individuals who resisted, or cases like the Navy mutiny of 1973, which cannot be attributed to a political "group". It is telling that the Greek WP has the more generic title "anti-dictatorial struggle" for its equivalent category. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support Peterkingiron's revised name. Constantine ✍ 11:16, 26 August 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The 7 articles currently in these categories are about parks etc where orienteering is just one of a range of activities that have taken place (hiking, camping, canoeing etc). I.e. orienteering is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these places. This form of categorization may encourage even worse categories (e.g. see this CFD). DexDor (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after listifying -- Like most venues categories, this is essentially a performance (=venue) by performer (sport or other activity). Categories such as this should only be allowed when the venue is only (or mainly) used for one sport, as with football and basketball stadia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete This is defining for French Creek State Park, as it has a permanent course, which I gather is uncommon. The others appear to be more of a matter of popularity as a locale for doing something which potentially can be done nearly anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orienteering does not require special locations, it is generally not defining and clearly not worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance analog. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (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.
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 nominated cats are not lists of bishops per se, rather they are containers for lists by diocese. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow -- preferably the second alternative. "Bishoprics" is being misused, when the ultimate contents are individual bishops. There is also a "former" category for merged or abolished diocese, which should be retained, but possibly renamed to match. It is useful to have defunct things kept separate, so that the present is not cluttered up by the past. However the target ought to called Category:Church of Ireland bishops by diocese. The Church of Ireland is an independent church within the Anglican Communion, not the Irish branch of the Church of England. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will support that. We may need to alter the former bishoprics categories to conform to this format. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these do not fit the scheme quite so well. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the "current" category merges & renames per LaurelLodged. I'm not keen on the "former" category renames as the new names could include bishops who were translated from one diocese to another without either diocese being defunct. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per ALT 2 I also note that this duplication exists in articles too; for instance, there is a Diocese of Connor (Church of Ireland) and a Bishop of Connor which is really a coatrack for the history of the diocese across the Reformation. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, I did not like "former diocese" myself. Would "defunct diocese" or "obsolete diocese" be better? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proper terms for starting and ending dioceses are erection and suppression. So technically should be "Bishops by supressed diocese in Ireland". However, I can see potential for emotive reactions to such a term with its implication, as a transitive verb, of a suppressor. "Defunct" is a more neutral term. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this WP:SMALLCAT to parent. Note: Wikipedia is supposed to be a global encyclopedia, not specifically about the US military. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (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 Order Of The National Flag (North Korea)[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. Dana boomer (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is nothing more than one country's government expressing approval of someone - in most/all articles in these categories the recipient is a politician or military commander whose article is in loads of more WP:DEFINING categories. See WP:OC#AWARD. This could be listified to Orders and Medals of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If we don't prune/fell the honours/awards category tree some articles will be in many categories (e.g. see Wojciech_Jaruzelski#Honours_and_awards). DexDor (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We do have categories for some national awards, including a lot of British ones. Being given by national authorities these are evidence of notability, but even then we need to be selective, as some awards are given too widely to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awards given by national authorities are generally more notable than awards given by TV stations etc, but IMO it's not always so notable that it's necessarily defining of recipients. We've previously deleted some categories for recipients of things conferred by governments (e.g. honorary_citizens,
medals, orders). DexDor (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (instead of comment above). The recipients (almost) all seem to be foreign political leaders, who are notable anyway, and not made more so by the award. Possibly Listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wish many of these would be deleted. But if these are going to exist at all, I think the first hurdle that must be faced is whether or not there is an article about the award. If there is not, then there should not be a category. In this case, there is not, so I would be in favour of deleting the category. If an article is ever created, this might be able to be reconsidered, but I would think a simple list contained in the article would be the way to go. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-defining award that we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2013 (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.
