Category:Fictional Distinguished Service Cross recipients[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:upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cat definitely has WP:SMALLCAT problems. The fact that the only article currently in the cat violates WP:CATDEF, since it lacks sourcing, leads me to think that deletion might be the better way to go. Another item springs to mind - the documentation for the cat makes no distinction between Distinguished Service Cross (United States) and Distinguished Service Cross (United Kingdom) which makes me doubt that the merge is the right way to go. However, if there is a consensus for the merge then that is fine by me. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Very small category on a possibly non-notable award. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never should have been made in the first place, upmerge or delete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; any writer may bestow any award on any of his or her characters, it has no meaning compared to the real people who earned them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or Delete per nom. It is too small a cat, and the DSC would not usually indicate notability for a real person (on its own) per WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 28 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.
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]
Oppose – I would suggest changing the headnote if it offends, rather than a proposal which leaves adrift a host of subcats such as Category:Associations by country. Not all clubs are associations, so it looks like a legitimate subcat to me. Oculi (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The headnote will have to change, but an association is not a club of any kind. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nomination provides invalid information. Many, if not most, of the articles do not include association in their name. This category and its subcats are not based on common name. Hmains (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are 36 subcategories in Category:Associations by country almost all only contain the category of professional associations. The articles which are in the main Category:Associations are a motley collection with nothing obvious in common. The category of "Association" is not defining. If someone thinks that there is a distinction in meaning between a club, a society and an association, can they please enlighten us? The OED defines each in terms of the others. And regardless of what we think it is clear that it is misleading.Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 27 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 headnote for the main category category:Associations 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 professional associations are incorporated, so don't belong here.Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 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.
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]
Delete per nom. It's pretty arbitrary to determine at what point a person is "tall," not to mention any definition is likely to be culturally biased (is "tall" in Germany the same as "tall" in Japan?) Rikster2 (talk) 15:18, 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[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: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]
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]
Upmerge To all 3 parent categories with no objection to recreating if the article count grows to 5 or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge To all 3 parent categories per RevelationDirect's suggestion. This is a category of one and the topic seems very narrow. Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 06:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support These categories exist primarily to group together subcategories for religious officials and dead people buried there. In other words, the only thing they have in common is the Cathedral so it makes sense to group them directly there. (General association categories are rarely a good idea and have also attracted some oddball articles (example). RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – why on earth would we object to a loose association of people with a cathedral and then merge them to an even looser association of anything at all with the same cathedral? (William Walker (diver) is clearly defined by his association with the cathedral, if you read the article.) Oculi (talk) 15:04, 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]
Keep all The guideline WP:OCASSOC is out-of-date, and does not reflect actual practise. See for example Category:People by university or college in England, which has 90 "associated" subcats, or the hundreds of subcats of Category:People by university or college in the United States which use the format "Foo College people" -- same scope, without the word "associated". As Oculi points out, the only effect of this nomination will be to drive down loosely-associated people to a similar categ with a different name. What's the gain? And why has Category:People associated with Westminster Abbey been omitted from this nomination? I don't see the conceptual problem in grouping the burials with the office-holders. In most instances of either relationship, the association will be WP:DEFINING of he person concerned, something to be mentioned in a short potted bio - burial at a cathedral is a notable honour, reserved for a privileged few. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 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]
Oppose Grouping biographical articles under a cathedral category will not aid navigation. I would not mind removing some of the very loosely associated articles, but the merge will not help anything. Dimadick (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Cathedral categories only. I looked at the Winchester case. The associates are all genuine. Simeon (abbot) was prior and might have been placed in the deans category or a new priors category: the bishop was probably the notional abbot, if it was anything like Worcester. We might additionally have a category for canons, but they are not necessarily "from Winchester" since most will not be canons residentiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support i.e. rename the Ely, Southwark and Winchester categories, but keep the remainder as they are. The first three are missing a parent category and there isn't really enough content to support an additional step in the category tree. Evidently the categories contained in these three would need adding to Category:People associated with cathedrals et al. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If one was writing a book about Foobar Cathedral one might have a chapter titled "Cathedral staff" and another chapter titled "Burials at the cathedral", but you wouldn't lump them together in a "People associated with the cathedral" chapter - it's not a coherent topic. This categorization puts Category:Burials at Winchester Cathedral below Category:People from Winchester ("for people born or who have lived in...") which is incorrect. DexDor(talk) 07:25, 25 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]
Delete all association with a cathedral runs the gamut of groundskeeper, parishioner, every priest or deacon or canon who ever officiated there, every bishop whose cathedral it was, the concertmaster, the choirmaster, choir members, those who sang songs about the cathedral, everyone buried there, those who studied, built, restored, the building, those who wrote books (tourist pamphlets or otherwise) about the place, everyone whose work of fiction had something to do with the place (much like tagging Dan Brown being associated with the Louvre because scenes from his book take place there). No thanks! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Delete all, after checking for subcats which should be moved up. I agree with the point made by Carlossuarez46, but as pointed out by DexDor these categories may have good subcats. OCASSOC does point out that specific groups which are associated re legit categories, it's just that the broad "associated with" which is a problem. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:46, 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.
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]
Delete It seems to be a subjective category with a large scope and no supporting sources. Basically any leader on the planet between 1945 and 1991 can be categorized as a "Cold War leader". I doubt this is particularly defining or can be sourced. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen this on too many historical figures who played nearly no role in the Cold War whatsoever. We don't have World War II leaders for all leaders during 1939 to 1945. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful given the subjectivity and tendency for it to be populated with people for whom the Cold War wasn't defining. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:16, 28 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.
