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 per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF and the delete outcome of numerous previous award discussions. There is no indication that the nominated categories are any special to make an exception for. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some probably deserve to be deleted, but they should be nominated individually, not en masse, as some are definitely notable. The previous discussions should never have been closed as they were and largely were because few editors were aware of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean by "some are definitely notable"? E.g. does "some" mean "some categories"? and if so what does "some categories are definitely notable" mean? Re few editors were aware: if that's true then it indicates that (in the weeks/months) the previous discussion was open few editors actually used these categories. DexDor(talk) 17:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request I agree that the Iron Cross (Austria) categories deserve separate consideration. But please take a quick look at the non-Iron Cross categories, because they seem so non-defining I don't see any reason not to get rid of them now. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to clarify. Keep the Order of the Iron Crown and Military Merit Medal categories, which were actually awarded for gallantry and/or merit. Delete the Karl Troop Cross, awarded to all soldiers who had served at the front for a set period, the Wound Medal, and the Commemorative Badge, which seems to have been awarded to anyone who served at court. These are not at all defining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On an article (e.g. Miklós Horthy) there's little point in having a list of medals received in the text of the article (structured, with references etc) and then repeating that list in the form of an unstructured list of categories. The purpose of categorization (in this encyclopedia) is to group together similar pages - not to form a database of person-medal relationships (cf WikiData). DexDor(talk) 17:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And where is it stated that that's the purpose of categorisation? Because it doesn't say so in WP:CAT. Would that possibly just be your opinion? It's certainly not my opinion and I've been here for many years. Neither is it the purpose of thousands of categories which categorise by just this sort of characteristic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Category says (in fact begins) "Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects." (note: that may be a bit of an oversimplification; we also use categories for various administrative purposes). If you think categories are for some different purpose then what would that be? See also WP:OSE. DexDor(talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Similar subjects". People who have received the same awards are "similar subjects" just as much as people who follow the same profession are "similar subjects" or people of the same nationality are "similar subjects". This basically seems to be an argument to get rid of all categorisation. And please don't cite OSE. You know as well as I do why that exists and it's not for deletionists to get rid of anything they don't like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the following: Category:Recipients of the Order of the Iron Crown (Austria); Category:Recipients of the Order of the Iron Crown (Austria), 1st class; Category:Recipients of the Order of the Iron Crown (Austria), 2nd class; Category:Recipients of the Order of the Iron Crown (Austria), 3rd class; Category:Recipients of the Order of the Iron Crown (Austria), 4th class. These are awards of a national honour system among the highest that could be conferred by the Austrian Emperor and as such could be considered defining. The other awards are much less defining particularly the Wound Medal category and any categories that exist but have no related articles. EricSerge (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iron Crown (Austria) & Subcats/Delete All Others I have to agree with @EricSerge: that this one seems defining since it was such a prominent award and conveyed knighthood. (I'm less sure about the Iron Cross below 1st class, but that would be better handled in a separate nomination.) Looking through the other awards (12 weeks at the front, injured) they are all clearly not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all these categories lead to category clutter with no well defined reason to keep any of them. These awards are not defining to their recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To say a gallantry medal is not defining to its recipients is to acknowledge utter ignorance of an honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It's typo. The name of this family is Zbaraski. I corrected the category in all articles about members of Zabaraski family. Kmicic (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2E, author request since this is effectively a rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a sppedy deletion, but I was reverted [1]. Kmicic (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (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.
Abstain as creator. I was unaware of such guidelines when I created these categories. As an inclusionist at heart, I prefer for most articles and other data to be kept, yet I feel with something small, like categories, aren't necessarily that vital for WP. --GouramiWatcher(?) 02:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining that true story (a) appears in compilation tv show (b) any more than real city (x) appears in gazetteer (y). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Seems defining for the shows, but not defining for the cases themselves. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the crimes, which is what these articles are on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We should certainly not categorise cases according to whether they have appeared as TV reconstructions. However, I thought that "Most wanted" was a category defined by the FBI and that the category was populated by a template concerned with their most wanted list. Since this is the FBI's designation, not a TV show's it would not be caught nby the guideline. Or am I mixing two things up? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2015 (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:Fictional bilingual and multilingual characters[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: Being bilingual is so common that it is WP:NON-DEFINING (of a fictional character). Many of the articles in, for example, Category:Fictional secret agents and spies would be eligible for this category. Categories are intended to group articles about similar topics - I don't think this does that. DexDor(talk) 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps it should be restricted to fictional extreme polyglots which are noted in-universe for exceptional multilinguality? (and reliably sourced for that being a characteristic of note) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally categorize things as being extreme - it's WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. There are a few cases - e.g. Category:Extreme skiers, but that's probably clearer to define than "extreme polyglots". DexDor(talk) 05:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a substantively WP:DEFINING feature of a fictional character in its own right — it's not a characteristic on which we would actually categorize real people either, for starters. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial trait which is made up anyway - and for many, because the programs in which they appear are translated you could see everyone from JR Ewing or SpongeBob speaking Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Arabic, etc. so they seem to be multilingual too.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't categorize people by the number of languages they speak. So why should we do this for fictional people? Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't form part of a "Gymnasts trained by..." categorization scheme (the only "trained by" category in en wp is for racehorses). This is more WP:DNWAUC than defining. Note: The one article currently in the category is of dubious notability. DexDor(talk) 05:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2015 (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.
Upmerge to parents I am not sure how this is clearly defined as different than its parent categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2015 (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:speedy deleted as empty categories; these resulted from a syntax error in the application of a standard maintenance template, and were rendered empty once the syntax errors were corrected. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with unsourced statements is not a queue where we keep separate categories for each individual day of tagging; we keep a single category per month-year of backlog, and don't subcat any more narrowly than that — what seems to have happened here, as far as I can tell, is that somebody erroneously inserted the exact date into several "citation needed" templates instead of "month year" as they were supposed to, and then erroneously created these instead of correcting the templates. For technical reasons, I've already corrected the affected templates to the proper format — meaning these are both now empty categories, and can just be speedied. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (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.
